REFUGEES ARRIVE IN INCREASING NUMBERS AS TRUMP’S UNILATERAL “ENFORCEMENT ONLY” POLICIES FAIL: “Deterrents” Don’t Work, But DHS Officials Request More Authority To Abuse Refugees — With An Administration That Refuses To Recognize The Reality Of The Situation In The “Failed States” Of The Northern Triangle & To Work Cooperatively With Refugee NGOs, The International Human Rights Community, & Lawyers, No Solution On Horizon!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2019/03/04/feature/after-cold-busy-month-at-border-illegal-crossings-expected-to-surge-again/

Nick Miroff reports for WashPost:

In a dusty lot along the U.S.-Mexico border fence, a single Border Patrol agent was stuck with few options and falling temperatures.

A group of 64 parents and children had waded through a shallow bend in the Rio Grande to turn themselves in to the agent on the U.S. side. He radioed for a van driver, but there were none available. By 2 a.m., the temperature was 44 degrees.

The agent handed out plastic space blankets. The group would have to wait.

Mothers and fathers swaddled their families in the silvery, crinkling sheets and clustered with them on the ground, shushing the children. They shivered in the cold wind, and the sound of crying carried on, like a broken alarm.

Groups like this arrived again and again in February, one of the coldest and busiest months along the southern border in years. U.S. authorities detained more than 70,000 migrants last month, according to preliminary figures, up from 58,000 in January. The majority were Central American parents with children who arrived, again, in unprecedented numbers.

During a month when the border debate was dominated by the fight over President Trump’s push for a wall, unauthorized migration in fiscal 2019 is on pace to reach its highest level in a decade. Department of Homeland Security officials say they expect the influx to swell in March and April, months that historically see large increases in illegal crossings as U.S. seasonal labor demand rises.

Migrant families wait for a Border Patrol van to take them to a holding facility in El Paso on Feb. 22. It was cold and windy that night, so a border agent distributed plastic blankets to the group.

The number of migrants taken into custody last year jumped 39 percent from February to March, and a similar increase this month would push levels to 100,000 detentions or more.

It was a surge in the border numbers in March 2018 that infuriatedPresident Trump and launched his administration’s attempt to deter families by separating children from their parents. Trump stopped the separations six weeks later to quell public outrage. But the controversy the policy generated — and its widely publicized reversal — is now viewed by U.S. agents as the moment that opened the floodgates of family migration even wider, worsening the problem it was meant to fix.

While arrests along the border fell in recent years to their lowest levels in half a century, they are now returning to levels not seen since the George W. Bush administration, driven by the record surge in the arrival of Central American families.

For U.S. border agents, the strain has grown more acute, as they struggle to care for children using an enforcement infrastructure made in an era when the vast majority of migrants were Mexican adults who could be quickly booked and deported. The Central American families — called “give-ups” because they surrender instead of trying to sneak in — have left frustrated U.S. agents viewing their own role as little more than the facilitators for the last stage of the migrants’ journey. They are rescuing families with small children from river currents, irrigation canals, medical emergencies and freezing winter temperatures.

“We’re so cold,” said Marlen Moya, who had left Guatemala with her sons six weeks earlier and crossed the Rio Grande with the group of 64.

Moya’s son Gael, 6, was sick with a fever and moaning, his face streaked with tears. “In Juarez, we were shoved and yelled at,” she said, looking back across the river to Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. “We slept on the street.”

Asked why she didn’t cross during the day, when temperatures were mild, Moya said she worried that Mexican police would stop them. “We’ve already come this far,” she said.

Marlen Moya, who had left Guatemala with her sons six weeks earlier, holds Gael, 6, as they wait along with Anderson, 8. Moya said she fled Guatemala City after being threatened and robbed at gunpoint at her beauty salon.

Much of the attention last fall was focused on caravan groups, mostly from Honduras, as they reached Tijuana, Mexico, not far from San Diego. Then concern shifted to Arizona and New Mexico, where groups of rural Guatemalan families began showing up at remote border outposts. Two Guatemalan children died in December after being taken into U.S. custody, as Homeland Security officials declared a humanitarian and national security crisis.

The border deal Trump and Democrats reached last month includes $415 million to improve detention conditions for migrant families, including funds to potentially open a new processing center in El Paso. But in the meantime, families continue to arrive in groups large and small, in faraway rural areas and right in downtown El Paso.

“The numbers are staggering, and we’re incredibly worried that we will see another huge increase in March,” said a Homeland Security official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the unpublished figures.

The group by the river had landed on the no man’s land between the Rio Grande and the tall, steel American fencing. They were on U.S. soil, a place that already has a border wall.

The lone U.S. agent with the group was the only one available along that span. Drug smugglers have been using the groups as a diversion, so the agent couldn’t leave the riverbank.

No vans or buses arrived to pick up the families. Other agents were busy at the nearby processing center because so many groups had arrived in El Paso that night, and still others were at the hospital, where they were helping parents and children receive treatment for severe flu symptoms.

Homeland Security officials have been urging lawmakers to grant them broader powers to detain and quickly deport families in a search for deterrent measures. Their attempts to crack down using executive actions have been blocked repeatedly in federal court.

The migrants travel by van to a holding facility in El Paso.

The Trump administration has begun sending some asylum-seeking Central Americans back to Mexico to wait while their claims are processed, but so far that experiment has been limited to California’s San Ysidro port of entry.

About 150 migrants were sent back across the border in February, according to Mexican authorities, but that is a small fraction of the more than 2,000 unauthorized migrants coming into U.S. custody on an average day.

Homeland Security officials said Friday that the pilot program, which they call Migrant Protection Protocols, will expand to El Paso and potentially other locations in coming weeks, predicting that the number of Central Americans sent back would grow “exponentially.” Some of the cities where they will wait are among the most dangerous in Mexico.

Mexican officials are cooperating by providing general assistance and job placement for those sent back to wait, but privately they have warned the Americans that their capacity to take parents with children is extremely limited, especially families that need welfare assistance and enrollment in already-crowded public schools.

Migrants at the border hold tight to the blankets and move about the area to stay warm while they wait for the van.

. . . .

*************************************

Read the full article at the above link.

As long as the Trump Administration insists on dealing unilaterally with a humanitarian refugee situation as a fake law enforcement problem, there will be no resolution; just more pain, needless suffering, and scofflaw gimmicks by an inhumane and incompetent Administration.

PWS

03-04-19

IN MATTER OF A-B-, SESSIONS DISINGENUOUSLY SUGGESTED SALVADORAN POLICE COULD PROTECT ABUSED WOMEN – THE TRUTH IS STARKLY DIFFERENT: American-Trained Cops Flee El Salvador Because Gangs Are In Control – Ex-Cops Granted Asylum While Helpless DV Victims Sent Back To Face Deadly Abuse – Trump Administration Continues To Pervert Asylum Law!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/its-so-dangerous-to-police-ms-13-in-el-salvador-that-officers-are-fleeing-the-country/2019/03/03/e897dbaa-2287-11e9-b5b4-1d18dfb7b084_story.html

Kevin Sief reports in WashPost:

SAN SALVADOR — They were given one of the most dangerous tasks in policing: Take down MS-13.

They were bankrolled by the United States and trained by FBI agents. But members of the Salvadoran police have been killed by the dozens in each of the past three years, most in attacks that investigators and experts blame on MS-13, an international street gang. At least nine officers were killed in the first month of this year.

Now, a number of El Salvador’s police officers are fleeing the gang they were tasked with eliminating.

There is no list in either El Salvador or the United States of Salvadoran police officers who have fled the country. But The Washington Post has identified 15 officers in the process of being resettled as refugees by the United Nations and six officers who have either recently received asylum or have scheduled asylum hearings in U.S. immigration courts. In WhatsApp groups, police officers have begun discussing the possibility of a migrant caravan composed entirely of Salvadoran police — a caravana policial, the officers call it.

The exodus of Salvadoran police points to how the country’s security forces have failed to break the stranglehold of organized crime. It also shows that among those seeking refuge in the United States during the Trump administration are some of America’s closest security partners.

“These are among the most vulnerable people in El Salvador,” said Julio Buendía, the director of migration at Cáritas El Salvador, a nonprofit organization that works with the United States and United Nations on refugee resettlement.

The United States has been bolstering the Salvadoran police, part of a regional strategy intended to stabilize Central America’s most violent countries and reduce migration. The State Department spent at least $48 million to train police in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras from 2014 through 2017, according to the Government Accountability Office.

The department opened a law enforcement training academy in San Salvador, where 855 Salvadoran officers were trained by the FBI and other American law enforcement agencies in those four years.

“The Salvadoran government, with U.S. government support, has made significant gains in the area of security, including reductions in homicides and every other category of violent crime measured,” the State Department said in a statement issued in response to an inquiry by The Post.

Citing “privacy reasons,” the department would not comment on whether it was receiving asylum or refugee applications from Salvadoran police officers.

By some measures, the U.S.-backed security efforts appeared to be showing results. In 2018, El Salvador’s murder rate was 50.3 per 100,000 inhabitants. That was still among the highest in the world, but it was down from 60.8 per 100,000 in 2017 and 81 per 100,000 in 2016.

MS-13 was born in Los Angeles in the late 1970s, expanding as more Salvadorans arrived in the United States after fleeing the country’s civil war. The group splintered, with Barrio 18 becoming a chief rival, and both groups grew in American prisons before reaching El Salvador through mass deportations. Between 2001 and 2010, the United States deported 40,429 ex-convicts to El Salvador, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

El Salvador’s government adopted an “iron fist” response to the gangs, including more police operations. When that approach failed, it tried to broach a truce with the gangs in 2014. The pact quickly disintegrated and was followed by another surge in violence. It was then that the gangs began to explicitly broadcast their threats against police officers.

“If you kill a ‘pig,’ or a police officer, you’re more respected in these gangs. That’s the policy — using death as exchange currency,” said Héctor Silva Ávalos, a journalist and researcher who has written a book on the Salvadoran police and has served as an expert witness at several asylum hearings for former police officers in the United States.

A man with an MS-13 tattoo is detained by Salvadoran security forces during an operation in San Salvador in January. (Marvin Recinos/AFP/Getty Images)

With salaries of $300 to $400 per month, the low-level police officers who make up the majority of the force often have no choice but to live in neighborhoods vulnerable to gangs. And so, in the vast majority of the cases, police officers are killed when they are home from work or are on leave.

In August, Manuel de Jesús Mira Díaz was killed while buying construction materials. In July, Juan de Jesús Morales Alvarado was killed while walking with his 7-year-old son on the way to school. In November, Barrera Mayén was killed after taking leave to spend time at home with his family.

The police investigated a number of the killings since 2014 and found members of the major gangs responsible.

“They have more control than we do. When we go home, we’re in neighborhoods where there’s one police to 100 gang members. We’re easy victims,” said one officer in the country’s anti-gang unit, who, after being threatened by MS-13 in his home, is awaiting refugee status from the United Nations. He spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear for his safety.

An MS-13 member killed a man on a New York subway platform. The gang dates back to the 1970s.

Police arrested a 26-year-old man, who they said is an MS-13 member, after he fatally shot an alleged rival gang member Feb. 3 in Queens. (Allie Caren/The Washington Post)

Complicating their response to the threats, Salvadoran police are also not legally allowed to take their weapons home with them.

“I bring it home anyway. I sleep with it on my waist,” said a female officer, who is awaiting refugee status from the United Nations and spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear for her safety. “My husband and I take turns sleeping. We know they are going to come for us.”

Many units in the Salvadoran police are forbidden to wear balaclavas to conceal their identities. In anti-gang units, officers are allowed to wear such masks during operations, but they are frequently asked to testify in court, where they must show their faces and identify themselves by name while gang members look on.

In 2017, El Salvador’s attorney general, Douglas Meléndez, urged the government to do more to protect off-duty police, asking the parliament to pass a “protection law” for police and soldiers that would also provide funding to protect their families. The law was never passed.

Last month, security concerns played a central role in a presidential election won by San Salvador’s 37-year-old former mayor, Nayib Bukele. At least 285 people were killed in January, leading up to the vote, which many saw as the gangs’ attempt to leverage their influence amid the election campaign. In a security plan leaked to the Salvadoran news media, Bukele’s campaign wrote: “The expansion of these criminal groups is undeniable, as is the impact on the lives of ordinary citizens.”

In response to the targeting of police officers this year, El Salvador’s police chief introduced a policy: For their own protection, officers were not allowed to return to their homes. The police chief declined multiple interview requests.

Suspects are detained by police in a neighborhood in San Salvador dominated by MS-13. (Marvin Recinos/AFP/Getty Images)

Many officers, feeling unprotected by their own force, have said their only option is to leave the country.

Organizations that work with the United Nations to resettle Salvadoran refugees in the United States say they have found more and more police officers arriving unannounced at their offices. In addition to the 21 asylum seekers and refugees identified by The Post, several others have recently arrived in Spain and Mexico, according to news reports, applying for humanitarian visas or other forms of protection. Lawyers for police officers and many officers themselves say that far more officers are preparing to flee.

One of the cases that Buendía, the migration director of Cáritas, referred to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is an officer who survived two attacks while off duty. First, he was shot eight times by suspected gang members; then, two years later, he was shot four times. The officer pleaded for protection from his commander.

Buendía included a letter from the commander in the officer’s refugee application. “There’s nothing we can do for you,” the commander wrote. “You need to protect yourself.”

A police spokesman declined to comment on the letter.

In one case, concerning a police officer now applying for asylum in U.S. immigration courts, gang members threatened to kidnap the officer’s child at an elementary school in rural El Salvador.

“That’s not what these guys signed up for. It’s one thing to be shot at on the job. It’s another for your family to be targeted while you’re off duty,” said Emily Smith, the attorney representing the officer.

Lawyers such as Smith who are representing the officers typically try to explain to immigration judges that as former police officers, their clients would be persecuted if they were forced to return to El Salvador. But the attorneys are also aware of how narrowly U.S. asylum law can be applied, and that the courts are unlikely to grant asylum to all former officers.

“What we chose to do is focus on the specific threats facing our client,” said Patrick Courtney, who last year represented a Salvadoran officer who had been physically assaulted in his home before fleeing. “We focused on his anti-gang views, on the fact that the threats were directed at him individually.”

Courtney’s client was granted asylum late last year. They discussed where he would live in the United States, and what he would do next. The former officer had only one goal: He wanted to join the United States military.

**************************************************

Former policemen have been recognized by BIA precedent as a “particular social group” for asylum for many years. Matter of Fuentes, 19 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 1988). However, in their rush to deny asylum to Central Americans, particularly under this xenophobic Administration, some U.S. immigration Judges and BIA panels simply choose to ignore precedent or to manufacture other reasons to deny asylum.

Granting asylum to endangered former police officers clearly is appropriate; but, granting it to the women targeted because of their gender whom those police cannot protect is equally required. Nevertheless, Sessions simply “streamrolled” the asylum law in Matter of A-B-.

While some U.S. Immigration Judges have recognized that even A-B-, properly read without regard to its pernicious dicta, leaves plenty of room for protecting refugee women who have suffered or fear domestic violence, others, and a number of BIA “panels” have jumped on the “Sessions deportation express.” I wouldn’t count on new AG Bill Barr to restore justice to this system, particularly since he has retained some of Sessions’s worst and most unqualified henchmen on his staff.

That’s why we need a legitimate, independent Immigration Court system not beholden to prejudiced “enforcement only” officials in the DOJ and the Executive Branch. It’s also time for a better and wiser Congress to specifically write gender into the asylum law to guard against this and future scofflaw Administrations who seek to inflict cruelty and injustice on some of the most vulnerable and deserving among us.

PWS

03-04-19

PARENTS VICTIMIZED BY SESSIONS’S CHILD ABUSE RETURN TO BORDER SEEKING THEIR CHILDREN, JUSTICE, & MERCY FROM A SYSTEM RUN BY THOSE WHO MOCK THE CONCEPTS! — Abusers Escape Accountability While Victims Continue To Suffer!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/29-parents-separated-from-their-children-and-deported-last-year-arrive-at-us-border-to-request-asylum/2019/03/02/38eaba7a-2e48-11e9-8781-763619f12cb4_story.html

Kevin Sieff and Sarah Kinosian report for the Washington Post:

Twenty-nine parents from across Central America who were separated from their children by U.S. immigration agents last year crossed the U.S. border on Saturday, demanding asylum hearings that might allow them to reunite with their children.

The group of parents quietly traveled north over the past month, assisted by a team of immigration lawyers who hatched a high-stakes plan to reunify families divided by the Trump administration’s family separation policy last year. The 29 parents were among those deported without their children, who remain in the United States in shelters, in foster homes or with relatives.

At about 5 p.m. local time, the families were taken to the U.S. side of the border by immigration agents, where their asylum claims will be assessed.

Although the Trump administration’s family separation policy has prompted congressional hearings, lawsuits and national protests, the parents have for nearly a year suffered out of the spotlight at their homes in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. They celebrated birthdays and Christmas on video calls, trying to determine whether their children were safe.

Now, they will pose a significant test to the embattled American asylum system, arguing that they deserve another chance at refuge in the United States, something rarely offered to deportees.

Before the Trump administration, families had never been systematically separated at the border. And before Saturday, those families had never returned to the border en masse.

More than 2,700 children were separated from their families along the border last year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. About 430 of the parents were deported without their children, and at least 200 of them remain separated today. Some waited in the hope that U.S. courts would allow them to return to the United States. Others paid smugglers to get them back to the border. Then came Saturday’s confrontation.

The group of parents walked toward the border here, flanked by local religious officials, and then waited at the entrance to the United States as the lawyers negotiated with U.S. officials. The parents sat on wooden benches, surrounded by their luggage, while officials decided how many of the parents to allow into the country.

Over the past three weeks, the parents stayed in a Tijuana hotel, sharing rooms and preparing for asylum hearings. They showed one another documents that their children had sent them: photos of foster families and report cards from Southwest Key, a company that runs shelters for migrant children.

A woman explained through tears how her daughter had tried to kill herself while in government custody. A man spoke about trying to communicate with his daughter, who is deaf, over a shelter’s telephone. Others carried bags full of belated Christmas gifts for their children.

José Ottoniel, 28, from Guatemala, at the Hotel Salazar in Tijuana, Mexico. Ottoniel was separated from his 10-year-old son, Ervin, and deported. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

Many of the parents, like José Ottoniel, from the tiny town of San Rafael Las Flores, Guatemala, said they had been pressured into signing deportation papers after being separated from their children, before they could begin their asylum claims. When he returned home after being deported in June, Ottoniel was told that his 10-year-old son, Ervin, was still in the United States at a shelter.

Ottoniel and Ervin are seen in a picture taken on Sept. 15, 2017, Guatemala’s independence day. (Daniele Volpe/for The Washington Post)

The family chose to keep Ervin in the United States with an uncle, rather than forcing him to return to the violence and poverty of their home village. It was a wrenching decision that Ottoniel’s wife, Elvia, who had remained in Guatemala when Ottoniel had tried to cross the border, eventually decided she couldn’t live with. In January, she paid a smuggler $8,000 to travel to the United States to reunite with Ervin in Arkansas, applying for asylum in South Texas.

[These migrants were separated from their children — and aren’t sure they should be reunited]

A few days later, Ottoniel received a call from an American immigration lawyer with the Los Angeles-based legal advocacy group Al Otro Lado, which means “to the other side.” The attorney asked him if he was willing to travel the 2,500 miles from his village to the U.S.-
Mexico border to deliver himself once again to immigration agents.

Al Otro Lado had received more than a million dollars in financial assistance from organizations such as Families Belong Together and Together Rising, which mounted fundraising campaigns in the midst of the government’s separation policy. The lawyer told Ottoniel that the organization would pay for his buses, flights and hotels.

“At that point, we were already seeing some of these parents paying smugglers to bring them back to the U.S.,” said Erika Pinheiro, litigation and policy director for Al Otro Lado, which had interviewed deported parents from across Central America who feared for their lives because of violence in their home countries. “We needed to provide them with another option.”

For Ottoniel, who referred to his family as “disintegrated,” it seemed his best shot at a reunion.

“It was a chance to see my son again. How could I say no?” he said.

Ottoniel and other parents converged at a three-story hotel in Tijuana,where lawyers told them to remain quiet about their plans. They rehearsed how they would address U.S. immigration officials. They watched telenovelas. At night, they called their children across the border.

There was Luisa Hidalgo, 31, from El Salvador, whose daughter, Katherinne, 14, is in the Bronx with a foster family. The girl texted her mother the same words over and over: “Fight for me.”

Luisa Hidalgo, 31, from El Salvador, displays a jewelry box she purchased to give her daughter when they reunite. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

Hidalgo sits for a portrait Feb. 14 in Hotel Salazar. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

There was Antolina Marcos, 28, who said she fled Guatemala after gangs began killing members of her family. She was separated from her 14-year-old daughter, Geidy, in May. “How can I live when she’s so far away?” Marcos said.

There was Santos Canelas, 44, who said he fled Honduras with his 16-year-old daughter, Merin, in May after gang members threatened to sexually assault her. She is living in New Orleans with a cousin. “Without my daughter, I’m dead inside,” he said.

In most of the 2,700 cases from when the Trump administration separated families at the border last year, both the parents and children remained in the United States, sometimes held in shelters and detention centers thousands of miles apart. Almost all of those families have now been reunified and are in the process of pursuing their asylum claims.

But the cases of about 430 parents deported without their children were particularly difficult. Often, the government lost track of which child belonged to which parent, and it did not link their immigration cases, sending parents back to Central America without telling them where their children were.

In some of those cases, parents later made the painful decision to leave their children in the United States, typically with relatives, rather than bringing them back to the violence and poverty from which the families fled. In other cases, the U.S. government determined that the parents were unfit to receive their children, often based on their criminal records.

Pablo Mejia Mancia, 53, from Honduras, was separated from his 10-year-old daughter, Monica, when they crossed the border in Reynosa, Mexico. Monica was detained for 3½ months. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

Santos Canelas, 45, from Honduras, was separated from his daughter Merin, 16, who was detained for five months. Back home, gang members had threatened to rape his daughter. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

After Trump signed an executive order officially ending the family separation policy on June 20, lawyers launched a legal battle to reunify many of the deported parents and their children in the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit demanding that the government allow 52 parents back into the United States to pursue their asylum claims, which the lawyers argued had been stymied after the parents were separated from their children at the border.

But the government has not responded to that appeal and later said it needed more information about the parents from the ACLU. It remains unclear when, or if, the U.S. government will invite those parents back to the United States to launch new asylum claims.

“The government has resisted bringing anyone back who was separated and deported without their kids,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “We hope the government will take a fresh look at these cases.”

[ACLU asks judge to order Trump administration to determine how many children were separated from their parents at border]

But as the government declined to articulate any plan to reunify the families, Pinheiro decided waiting much longer would put the parents at risk. Some had relocated to a safe house in Guatemala City to escape threats in El Salvador and Honduras. Some had already been without their children for more than a year, and those separations were taking a psychological toll.

“We gave them the option — you can wait for the court process, or you can do it this way,” Pinheiro said. Al Otro Lado worked with the ACLU to identify the separated parents in Central America, but the ACLU was not involved in bringing the 29 parents back to the border.

With few other options, Pinheiro said, almost every parent she approached accepted her offer. The parents first gathered in the Guatemalan city of Tecun Uman before crossing into Mexico with humanitarian visas that Al Otro Lado helped arrange. They flew to Mexico City and then to Tijuana, eventually taking a bus to Mexicali.

“We’re traveling back to the border where we lost our children in the first place,” said Pablo Mejia Mancia, 53, of Honduras, who was separated from his daughter, who is now 9 years old, when they crossed the border into Texas in May.

Antolina Marcos said she fled Guatemala after gangs began killing members of her family. She was separated from her 14-year-old daughter, Geidy, in May. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

It’s likely that some of the parents could be detained for months if the government decides to process their asylum claims. The U.S. policy of forcing asylum seekers to wait in Mexico has not yet been put into practice in Mexicali.

“They’re standing right at the border, preparing to reenter a system that traumatized their families months earlier,” Lindsay Toczylowski, executive director of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, who counseled the parents in Tijuana, said before the parents crossed into the United States. “It says a lot about what they’re fleeing, and what they lost.”

**********************************************

Folks, we don’t have to look much further than Michael Cohen’s testimony (even if every word isn’t absolute truth), the House Judiciary GOP’s disgusting “head in the sand” performance, and Trump’s totally deranged two-hour litany of lies, distortions, fabrications, and White Nationalist myths before a deliriously giddy audience at CPAC this weekend to see that our country is in deep trouble.

Four out of ten voters and a major party just don’t care if we’re “led” by a congenital liar, racist, and suck-up to the world’s worst dictators, who lacks any trace of human empathy, an essential ingredient for governing for the common good.

In the meantime, your tax dollars are being spent on misguided, wasteful, and counterproductive “immigration enforcement” and a failed Immigration Court system that no longer prioritizes Due Process and fundamental fairness. Never forget that the damage already done to these families and children might well be irreparable and that we are responsible as a nation for the atrocities, deceptions, and mindless cruelty carried out by Trump and his minions in our name. Yes, as these pictures by Carolyn Van Houten show, there are real human beings out there, decent people much more like us than we might choose to believe, who are suffering because of what our Government has become.

It could be a long uphill fight to save our republic. But, that’s what the New Due Process Army is fighting to do every day!

PWS

03-03-19

FACTS MATTER: CMS Study Shows Border Is Under Control – But Trump Isn’t! — “[T]he US undocumented population has declined by one million since 2010; illegal entries have plummeted to historic lows; and, in recent years, only one third of newly undocumented residents entered this population by crossing the US-Mexico border.”

itialhttps://mailchi.mp/cmsny/2017-undocumented-decline?e=2d6959cb73

View this email in your browser

Data from the Center for Migration Studies
Shows Sharp Multiyear Decline
in Undocumented Immigration

New York, NY – In a paper released today, the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) reports that the US undocumented population has declined by one million since 2010; illegal entries have plummeted to historic lows; and, in recent years, only one third of newly undocumented residents entered this population by crossing the US-Mexico border. The paper, authored by CMS’s senior visiting fellow Robert Warren, includes four graphs that illustrate major demographic trends in the undocumented population since 2000 and a table that provides detailed information about the size and components of undocumented population change annually since 1990. This paper combines CMS data and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) statistics on apprehensions, adjustment of status, and removals, to illustrate major trends in undocumented immigration to the United States since 1990.

Major findings include:

Undocumented population growth peaked in 2000, then dropped rapidly from 2000 to 2010; the total population has declined by one million since 2010.

The drop in DHS apprehensions at the border mirrored the decline in undocumented population growth, falling from 1.6 million in 2000 to about 300,000 in 2017.

Undocumented population growth stopped because undocumented arrivals fell from 1.4 million in 2000 to about 550,000 in 2007 and have since continued at about that level, while the number leaving the undocumented population increased steadily, from 370,000 in 2000 to 770,000 in 2016.

From 2010 to 2016, about two-thirds of undocumented arrivals overstayed temporary visas; only one-third entered across the US-Mexico border. Overstays exceeded those who entered without inspection (EWIs) after 2008, not because the overall number of overstays increased (these numbers remained stable), but because EWIs continued to decline.

“Multiyear trends show a dramatic decline in both the undocumented population and undocumented migration to the United States. While there is a need to address the conditions driving asylum-seekers and other migrants to our borders and to make US ports-of-entry more secure, our findings show significant progress at the US-Mexico border, not a national emergency,” said Donald Kerwin, CMS’s executive director.

The report is now available at http://bit.ly/2XqsQMO.

MEDIA CONTACT
Rachel Reyes, Director of Communications
(212) 337-3080 x. 7012
rreyes@cmsny.org

*****************************************************

There is no “Southern Border Crisis” going all the way back into the Obama Administration’s unnecessary “panic approach” starting in the Summer of 2014. There is, however, gross maladministration of the asylum system, the process at legal ports of entry, and the U.S. Immigration Courts.

Not only is “Trump’s Wall” a wasteful and unnecessary piece of restrictionist diversion, it actually fails to address the major source of undocumented migration these days — nonimmigrant visa overstays and other issues at legal ports of entry.

Yet, Trump gets way with spreading false narratives and making up fake statistics to advance his factually unsupportable and dishonest “White Nationalist Agenda.” Here’s a link to a Newsweek article on Trump’s latest “litany of lies” about Immigration Court including the “Super Whopper” that “only 3% show up for hearings.” https://apple.news/Ak5yRHdLeSc-Qnq-jDR-

Wow, how does he get away with these total fabrications; the Government’s own statistics actually show that represented asylum applicants show up for hearings at a rate that’s much closer to 100% than 3%! Obviously, the real answer to asylum arrivals at the Southern Border is to get them pro bono lawyers, apply asylum law honestly and without bias, have hearings in a reasonable and timely manner, and let the chips fall where they may.

Most experts believe that under such a system the majority of arrivals from the “Northern Triangle” will qualify for asylum. That’s certainly my experience.

But, since we are not allowing the system work in the fair, impartial, and independent way it was intended, nobody actually knows the answer. Except that we do know that systemic fairness and efficiency could be achieved for less than the billions of dollars that Trump and his supporters are willing to waste on an unnecessary and ineffective “Wall.”

Worse yet, neither GOP legislators nor Trump’s rabid supporters and enablers are willing to “call him out” on his lies. Facts do matter; as long as they are buried beneath Trump’s lies, and as long as a significant portions of the electorate and the legislature remain uninterested in truth and an honest dialogue, we’re going to have difficulty moving forward as a nation.

That’s why we need the energy and dedication of the “New Due Process Army” to keep advancing a vision of a kinder, more decent, more humane, more inclusive America for as long as it takes to realize America’s noble, yet unfulfilled, promise of “liberty and justice for all.”

PWS

03-03-19

ABA PRESIDENT BOB CARLSON PUTS DUE PROCESS CRISIS IN IMMIGRATION @ TOP OF HIS “MUST DO” LIST — Independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court & More Legal Representation Are The Keys!

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/immigration-matters-fair-process

Immigration Matters: A fairer process is needed for those seeking entry to the United States

BY BOB CARLSON

MARCH 20

Photo of Bob Carlson by Tom Salyer

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

These words from an Emma Lazarus sonnet, engraved on a plaque on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, are not policy or law. Yet they embody the ideals and spirit of America, a land of immigrants.

Despite the countless ways that immigrants have advanced our country and have helped to fuel innovation and growth, the United States cannot welcome everyone who yearns to breathe free. Our nation needs to regulate and control immigration, have secure borders and keep people safe. But developing clear, comprehensive, practical and humane immigration law is possible—and long overdue.

Policies that separate children from their parents or deny legitimate asylum-seekers due process violate both our values and established law. The ABA has made this clear in a letter sent to the U.S. Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security. The ABA has suggested guidelines and compiled thoughtful and well-researched publications such as the recently updated “Standards for the Custody, Placement and Care; Legal Representation; and Adjudication of Unaccompanied Alien Children in the United States.”

While crafting comprehensive immigration law in a divided society can be difficult, it is imperative. One place to start is immigration courts.

An independent judiciary is a hallmark of our democracy. It encompasses the principle that all people are entitled to fair and impartial legal proceedings where important rights are at stake. Immigration courts decide issues that are life-altering.

Immigration courts, however, lack the safeguards that other parts of our justice system have. Structural and procedural issues have resulted in a backlog of more than 800,000 cases even though in recent years Congress has added resources, including a sizable increase in the number of judges and support staff.

Immigration courts currently exist within the Justice Department. Their personnel and operations are subject to direct control of the attorney general. Immigration judges can be removed without cause and can be at the mercy of whatever policy the attorney general wants followed. It can change from administration to administration. This structure creates a fatal flaw to an independent, impartial judiciary.

Restructuring the immigration adjudication system into an Article I court is the best solution to promote independence, impartiality, efficiency and accountability. Article I legislative courts are established by Congress, and judges would only be subject to removal for cause and not without judicial review. The U.S. Tax Court—where judges are nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate and serve terms of 15 years—could act as a model. The idea has been endorsed by the National Association of Immigration Judges for more than two decades. The ABA adopted policy in 2010 calling for the creation of Article I immigration courts.

Another problem is representation. Access to counsel and legal information are critical in ensuring fairness and efficiency in the immigration system, yet only 37 percent of people in removal proceedings and just 14 percent of those detained are represented by counsel. The odds of winning an asylum case without legal representation are one in 10 while those with a lawyer win nearly 50 percent of their cases.

The ABA supports the right to appointed counsel for vulnerable populations in immigration proceedings, such as unaccompanied children, and mentally ill and indigent immigrants. Budgetary challenges make this unlikely to happen soon, so access to as much information about the process is critical.

The ABA, supported by its Commission on Immigration, will continue to advocate for fairness and full due process for immigrants and asylum-seekers in the United States and ensure an equitable, effective process for adjudicating immigration cases. This serves the interest of both the government and individuals within the system.

Our efforts to solve the problems must not undermine the fundamental principles that exemplify America and our justice system. Welcoming immigrants has been a strength of America since its founding.

As President George Washington said: “The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.”

***************************************

I testified before the ABA Commission on Immigration about the “Due Process Crisis in Immigration Court,” the need for an Article I Court, the requirement for more lawyers, and the absolute Due Process disaster engendered by the intentionally misguided policies of the Trump Administration as they related to the abusive, counterproductive, and disingenuous use of the Immigration Courts as a branch of DHS Enforcement. The massive failure of Due Process in the U.S. Immigration Courts, the “retail level” of our justice system, threatens the individuals rights of all of us!

PWS

03-03-19

SYSTEMIC FAILURE: 9TH Circuit’s Most Recent Reversal Of BIA Demonstrates Disturbing Lack Of Basic Judicial Competence At All Levels Of EOIR – But, Even The 9th’s Rebuke Misses The Real Point – There Can Be No Due Process In Complex Cases Of This Type Without Legal Representation! – Arrey v. Barr

Arrey v Barr — 9th — Firm Resettlement

Arrey v. Barr, 9th Cir., 02-16-19, Published

SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:

The panel granted in part a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture to a citizen of Cameroon, and remanded.

The panel rejected petitioner’s contention that she was deprived of her due process right to a full and fair hearing based on the denial of her right to retained counsel and an unbiased fact finder. The panel held that the IJ in this case provided petitioner reasonable time to locate an attorney, where the IJ provided several continuances so she could do so, warned her repeatedly that he would not grant further continuances, and attempted to call her attorney when he failed to appear on the day of her merits hearing. The panel also held that although the IJ was rude and harsh with petitioner, petitioner failed to establish that the IJ’s conduct prejudiced her, where the IJ held a complete hearing and made a thorough decision that fully examined the underlying factual matters, and any potential prejudice caused by the IJ’s questionable adverse credibility determination was cured by the Board’s subsequent decision assuming the credibility of petitioner’s testimony in full.

The panel held that the Board committed three legal errors in its application of the firm resettlement bar, which precludes asylum relief if an applicant was firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States. First, the panel held that the Board erred by failing to consider whether the conditions of petitioner’s offer of resettlement in South Africa were too restricted for her to be firmly resettled. Second, the panel held that the Board erred by applying the firm resettlement rule not as a mandatory bar to petitioner’s asylum claim, but instead as a limitation on the evidence the Board considered in support of her claim for relief from removal to Cameroon, thus causing the Board to improperly ignore evidence of the abuse petitioner suffered in Cameroon before fleeing to South Africa, as well as evidence of the nature of her relationship with her abuser. Third, the panel held that the Board erred by applying the firm resettlement bar to petitioner’s withholding of removal claim, which is not subject to the firm resettlement bar.

Turning to petitioner’s CAT claim, the panel held that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s determination that petitioner could avoid future harm through internal relocation in Cameroon.

The panel remanded petitioner’s asylum, withholding, and CAT claims for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

PANEL: Ronald M. Gould and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges, and Frederic Block,* District Judge.

* The Honorable Frederic Block, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

OPINION BY: Judge Gould

KEY QUOTE:

Petitioner Delphine Arrey petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA” or “Board”) decision dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We conclude that the IJ did not deny Arrey her due process rights to counsel and an unbiased factfinder. As to Arrey’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, we conclude that the Board erred as a matter of law in its analysis and application of the “firm resettlement” rule. As to Arrey’s claim for relief under CAT, we conclude that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s determination that Arrey could safely relocate in another area of Cameroon. We grant the petition in part and remand for reconsideration of Arrey’s claims consistent with our opinion.

**************************************************

Even the 9th Circuit “blew” the fundamental issue here: No matter how annoying the respondent’s conduct might have been, there was no way to conduct a fair hearing in a case of this complexity without counsel present.

From this recitation of facts, it’s pretty obvious that the respondent had no idea what “firm resettlement” was or how the process for proving or disproving it worked. Going ahead with the hearing created a miscarriage of justice that simply wasted time by going all the way the 9th Circuit and then being returned for competent judicial adjudication applying the correct standards. Haste makes waste.

And the overwhelming backlog that obviously was on the judge’s mind here was not created by this respondent and her attorney; no, it primarily results from “aimless docket reshuffling,” poor administration, Congressional neglect, and “designed to fail policies” by politicos in the DOJ (under the improper and unethical political influence of the DHS) which went into “overdrive” under Sessions.

Getting to the merits, beyond apparently correctly setting forth the respondent’s name and “A number,” the Immigration Judge and the BIA got largely everything else in this case wrong! The basic errors range from a “clearly erroneous” adverse credibility ruling, to a legally incorrect standard for “firm resettlement,” to an idiotically nonsensical ruling that “threats and one attempted assault of rape” did not “rise to the level of persecution” (cases involving these facts were routinely granted by the BIA during my tenure and, to my knowledge, were uniformly granted by IJs in Arlington; indeed, I can’t even imagine an ICE Assistant Chief Counsel during my tenure in Arlington arguing the contrary), to wrong evidentiary determinations, to another completely nonsensical finding on internal relocation.

In other words, this was a “rubber stamp” by BIA “judges” of a staff attorney’s writeup with canned “any reason to deny” language. It was not a fair and impartial adjudication by an “expert” group of appellate judges.

Far from it. If a student had turned this in as an exam answer to a hypothetical case on my Georgetown Law final exam, it would have received “zero credit.” So, how is it “OK” to have a system where individuals in what are supposed to be senior judicial positions, requiring great expertise in immigration, asylum, and human rights law, perform in a manner that would have been deemed unacceptable for L2s and L3s?

It isn’t; and it’s up to the Article III Courts and Congress to get some backbone and some integrity and put an end to this travesty. Yeah, this is “only one case.” But, it involves a human life. Cameroon is a horrible country; credible Cameroonian asylum cases were routinely granted in the Arlington Immigration Court, normally without appeal by ICE.

And for every case where a respondent is lucky enough to get a “Court of Appeals intervention,” dozens of individuals, many without lawyers or the faintest knowledge of what’s happening, are “railroaded” through this fundamentally unfair and constitutionally defective system. This, rather than the bogus wall, or an influx of desperate refugee families seeking asylum, is our true “national emergency” involving immigration: The disdain by our current Administration for the rule of law, human rights, judicial quality, simple human decency, and Due Process of Law under our Constitution!

Congrats to Attorney Ron Richey, an “Arlington Immigration Court regular,” who appeared before me many times, for fighting for due process and justice in another jurisdiction. You are an inspiration to all of us in the “New Due Process Army!”

PWS

03-01-19

JUSTICE DENIED: U.S. Immigration Judge @ Stewart Detention “Court” (“Where Asylum Cases Go To Die”) Denies “Slam Dunk” Asylum Bid To Unrepresented Refugee From DRC, Threatening Him & Family With Death! — System That Once Promised To “Guarantee Fairness and Due Process for All” Is Now A Bastion Of Injustice!

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/immigration/sd-me-separated-father-20190227-story.htm

Kate Morrissey writes in the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Constantin Bakala and his family have survived kidnapping, torture, rape, poison and a shipwreck.

Now, faced with the complexities of the U.S. immigration system, they may be on the verge of defeat.

Bakala, 48, and his family fled their home in the Democratic Republic of Congo in late 2016 after they were targeted for Bakala’s participation in an opposition party that promoted democracy in the country, according to his wife.

After traveling through more than 10 countries, the family arrived at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in November 2017. Bakala was separated from his wife and seven children and sent to an immigration detention center in Georgia while they were released to live in the San Diego area, a common practice at the time. He hasn’t seen them since.

Because they were separated physically, their cases were also handled separately in immigration court. Since the federal government prioritizes detained cases, Bakala’s finished before the family’s even began, according to their attorney.

Unable to find an attorney to represent him at the detention center in rural Georgia and with little money to even pay for phone calls to the outside world to try to get help, Bakala faced by himself an immigration court known for being tough on asylum seekers. Judge Michael Baird, who heard his case, granted 11 of the 152 asylum cases that he decided between fiscal 2013 and 2018, records show.

Bakala lost.

He tried to appeal the case by himself and was denied that as well, according to court records. Now the family, with the help of a San Diego church, has found an attorney to help him, but it may be too late.

He is convinced that if he returns to the Democratic Republic of Congo, he will be murdered by his own government.

Bakala’s party membership card shows he was part of the Rassemblement des Congolais Démocrates et Nationalistes, or RCDN, which opposed former president Joseph Kabila’s maneuvers to stay in power past his term limit. When Bakala wasn’t at his job at the Ministry of Health, he worked with the party’s youth and advised them on how to demonstrate peacefully against the ruling party, his wife Annie Bwetu Kapongo said.

Bwetu Kapongo tells their story slowly, haltingly, sometimes with painful detail and sometimes in circles, a symptom of the trauma she carries from what happened.

She remembers when her husband first told her about getting threatened, and she remembers the day he went missing in 2016.

When she went to the police to ask for help finding him, she was locked in a room that reeked of urine. Later, three policemen came in, beat her and raped her. She tried to stop them and pointed out that she was pregnant.

The men didn’t care, she said. She ended up losing the baby.

When she was eventually able to return home, her husband was still missing. The two stores she owned, one that sold fish and one that sold cakes and juice, were broken into and robbed by people looking for her husband, who had by this point escaped where he had been imprisoned and tortured, according to his attorney.

One night, Bwetu Kapongo woke up to the family dog’s aggressive barking before hearing it abruptly stop. They found the dog dead the next day.

Another night, she and the children got sick. Their heads were spinning, and they were vomiting. Eventually, they found a tool someone had used to release poison into the house, she said.

Finally, one night she heard a knock on her window. It was her husband.

Aided by people he’d brought to help the family, they scooped the children out of their beds while they were sleeping and fled in a boat down a river to the Republic of Congo, where the people helping them paid for their hotel, Bwetu Kapongo said.

They waited a couple of months there until they had travel documents to get to Brazil and left in early 2017 to begin a grueling journey to the U.S. border.

“We came because America respects the law, and they know how to protect people,” Bwetu Kapongo said through a translator.

In each of the countries they passed through, officials told them that they could not stay, she added. They were sent from Panama back to Colombia when they tried to get across the border by boat and ended up having to make the grueling 6- to 7-day walk through the jungle to Costa Rica.

In Costa Rica, they found a boat that would take them to Nicaragua.

After they’d been on it for about 45 minutes, Bwetu Kapongo heard shots fired at them. She told her children to lay down. Then, the boat broke, she said, and it began to sink.All of a sudden, her youngest child Joseph, who is now 5, was no longer in her arms.

She started to drown.

“Is this a nightmare? Is this real? Is this happening?” she recalled asking the darkness that surrounded her.

She felt other bodies in the water, hands pushing her head down as they tried desperately to reach the surface. She felt someone clutch her neck. It was David, her 12-year-old son.

When a rescue boat pulled her to safety, she found her 17-year-old daughter Marie Louise. Bwetu Kapongo began to pray, crying out the names of her five other children and asking God to find them. Her husband was soon rescued from the water and prayed with her.

When rescuers noticed bubbles moving in the water, they found Joseph along with 8-year-old Moses and 10-year-old Augustine clinging to a rope and pulled them to safety.

Emmanuel, her 15-year-old son, had been carried further away into the water with 14-year-old Daniel. They found a life preserver that had been thrown into the water and clung to it, bringing with them two girls from another family who were also nearly drowning.

When Emmanuel used the last of his strength to cry out, rescuers found them, Bwetu Kapongo said. Two people who had been on the boat died, one adult and one child.

Though the family survived, all of the documents and photos that could have been used as evidence were lost in the water.

They would have to journey by boat two more times between Costa Rica and Nicaragua before successfully making it the rest of the way up to the U.S. border.

Constantin Bakala and wife Annie Bwetu Kapongo while the family was in Brazil (Emmanuel Bakala)

Bwetu Kapongo said she expected to receive “protection and respect” when they arrived. Instead, her husband was quickly taken away.

It is only when she reaches this point in the story that she begins to cry.

She wouldn’t hear from him for about a month. He told her that he didn’t know how to find her, that it took that long for officials to give him information about where she was.

The family’s attorney Julie Hartlé said the family’s story is “horrific but not unusual.” Other attorneys she knows have had similar cases.

“This family meets every criteria. They were persecuted for being democracy activists, kidnapped and tortured by their own government,” Hartlé said. “It meets the exact definition of asylum for political persecution. It should’ve been straightforward. They were able to use the detention system against them.”

Bakala had to fill out his asylum application in English, a language he does not speak well. Though he told the judge verbally about three times he was taken by police, how he was beaten, interrogated and held without food, he only put information about one of the incidents in his application.

“That sounds like a pretty bad event,” the judge said in his ruling of one of the incidents Bakala described. “Unfortunately, it is never mentioned anywhere in the respondent’s application for asylum.”

The evidence that Bakala was able to gather and present — including a notice from his political party about his disappearance, another notice that the ruling party was looking for him, his voter ID card and party membership card — was not translated into English, so the judge said he couldn’t consider it, according to court records. He found Bakala’s story not credible.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review said it does not comment on judges’ decisions.

Neither Immigration and Customs Enforcement nor Customs and Border Protection were able to respond to request for comment in time for publication.

As immigration officials prepared to deport Bakala, attorneys filed emergency motions to temporarily keep him in the U.S. to try to reopen his case with new evidence. Last week, the 11th Circuit granted him a stay until Friday.

In the meantime, members of the church helping the family here in San Diego are planning a protest outside of the federal building at noon on Thursday in support of Bakala.

Bwetu Kapongo said the most important thing for her is protection for her children.

“He sacrificed his life to protect his kids,” she said in French. “If we hadn’t done what we did, they would already be dead.”

Beyond that, she wishes for her husband’s return. She tries to hide her exhaustion and her tears from her children, but she doesn’t think she can raise them alone.

“After the mountain I went through, I’ve got no more strength,” she said.

******************************************

So, how might a real judge, one committed to guaranteeing fundamental fairness, due process, and properly applying the generous dictates of U.S. asylum law have approached this case?

First, Bakala comes from a country, the Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”) which is one of the most repressive regimes in the world, where persecution is rampant. For example, the DRC received a score of 17 on a scale of 100 in the latest Freedom House freedom rankings.

Here’s a quote from the most recent U.S. State Department Country Report summarizing the daily horrors of life in the DRC:

The most significant human rights issues included: unlawful killings; disappearances and abductions; torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and punishment, including sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and rape; life-threatening conditions in prisons and detention facilities; arbitrary arrests and prolonged detention; denial of fair public trial; arbitrary interference with privacy, family, and home; restrictions on freedoms of speech and the press, assembly, and association; abuse of internally displaced persons (IDPs); inability of citizens to change their government through democratic means; harassment of civil society, opposition, and religious leaders; corruption and a lack of transparency at all levels of government; violence and stigmatization against women, children, persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities, indigenous persons, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) persons, and persons with albinism, with little government action to investigate, prosecute, or hold perpetrators accountable; trafficking in persons, including forced labor, including by children; and violations of worker rights.

Authorities often took no steps to investigate, prosecute, or punish officials who committed abuses, whether in the security forces or elsewhere in the government, and impunity for human rights abuses was a problem.

Therefore, knowing that Bakala comes from a notorious “refugee producing country,” the Immigration Judge should have insisted as a matter of due process and fundamental fairness that the case be continued until the respondent could get the assistance of a competent lawyer to fully and fairly present a case for saving his life.

Asylum law has been made intentionally and unnecessarily complicated by a politicized system run with a strong enforcement bias; statistics, as well as experience, show that unrepresented individuals have virtually no realistic chance of success, particularly in a system run by an Administration clearly prejudiced against them. Human lives become mere “case completions.”

Second, Bakala’s wife also appears to have a strong asylum claim in her own right. If granted, he could also have been protected as a derivative asylee under his wife’s application. Therefore, unless ICE were basically willing to stipulate to an asylum grant, proceeding with the cases separately was presumptively unfair. A judge committed to fairness, would have “pushed” the ICE Counsel on why this family’s cases were not being heard together.

Third, to justify an adverse credibility finding under the statute and BIA precedents, the judge’s ruling must demonstrate significant discrepancies or omissions, provide cogent reasoning, and carefully consider and give reasons for not accepting the respondent’s explanations for any problems. This judge’s ruling appears to have “flunked” all of those tests. The idea that a detained unrepresented individual’s omission of an event from the asylum application is a cogent basis for finding him not credible is facially absurd. That’s particularly true where the respondent is not a native English speaker and is held in detention where his ability to prepare, or, indeed, to even understand what is required for a successful asylum application, is intentionally impaired.

Moreover, a simple reference to the most current State Department Country Report (quoted above) would have shown the judge that the respondent’s testimony was highly plausible in light of known country conditions. Indeed, persecution, torture, and abuse are daily occurrences in the DRC.

Additionally, the judge violated due process by requiring a detained individual to get translations of key corroborating documents. It’s simply not possible in most cases. How is a detained unrepresented individual going to find a qualified foreign language translator in the Stewart prison? A judge doing his job fairly would have asked the respondent to summarize the documents and accepted a “proffer;” or he could have had the documents read into the record by the interpreter.

For the purpose of a detained adjudication, I would have assumed that the documents were what the respondent said they were and acted accordingly. If the DHS wanted to challenge the decision, they could have the documents translated. Just one of many problems in purporting to conduct “due process hearings:” in place where due process often can’t really be achieved.

Then, the “rubber stamp” BIA (a/k/a the “Falls Church Adjudication Center”) also “tanked” by not applying its own precedents which should have resulted in a finding that the Immigration Judge’s specious reasoning was “clearly erroneous.”

I heard a number of asylum cases from the DRC during my time on the bench in Arlington. I doubt that I denied any except for individuals who were aggravated felons, engaged in persecution of others, or had provided material support to a terrorist organization. Even those who failed to establish asylum eligibility often had valid claims for protection under the Convention Against Torture, given the prevalence of government sponsored or endorsed torture in the DRC. Most DRC asylum cases in Arlington were well-represented, well-documented, and either largely unopposed or not appealed by ICE.

Even without a lawyer, it appears that Bakala’s testimony was credible under the circumstances and that he suffered harm that should have warranted a grant of asylum on account of political opinion based on known country conditions. At one time in Arlington, a case like this with representation probably could have been granted largely by stipulation, with brief testimony, on a “short docket.”

That’s how cases can “move” on the Immigration Court’s crowded dockets without compromising due process or fundamental fairness. Instead, this Administration encourages a biased “haste makes waste” approach, issues statements of strong prejudgment against asylum seekers and their attorneys, motivates judges to cut corners, and enables judges to look for “any reason” to deny asylum and crank out final orders of removal. It’s a “cavalcade of worst practices!”

While some judges courageously resist and insist on “doing the right thing,” others choose or feel compelled to “go along to get along” with the Administration’s unethical (and incompetent) administration of these so-called “courts.” Indeed, today’s Immigration Judges are not even properly trained on how to correctly adjudicate and grant asylum under the generous standards mandated by the law, the Supreme Court, and even the BIA’s (seldom followed) precedent supposedly implementing generous standards following the Supreme Court’s admonishment. It’s an exercise in extreme intellectual dishonesty.

Allowing serious, “life or death” cases to be tried in places like Stewart, notorious for being the home of unsympathetic judges and an inherently coercive atmosphere, intentionally located in and out-of-the-way place where it is hard for attorneys to participate, is a stain on America.

The DOJ has abandoned any semblance of running its “wholly owned courts” in a fair and constitutional manner. Congress, ultimately responsible for creating and countenancing this mess, has long abdicated its duty to establish an independent system that complies with Due Process.

Article III Judges also have been largely complicit in allowing this pathetic imitation of a “court” system to continue operating in a fundamentally unfair and unreasonable manner and spewing forth skewed, unjust, often unlawful, and sometimes deadly results. It’s a national disgrace!

Sadly, the individuals being abused by the Immigration Court system are some of the weakest and most vulnerable among us. That’s what allows such systematic injustice to operate “largely below the radar screen.” However, the individuals who are participating in and enabling such outrageous contempt for the rule of law and human dignity, and thereby violating their oaths of Federal office, will not escape the judgment of history.

Fixing this unfair and intentionally broken system is well within our power as a country. It could be done for much less than $5.7 billion. Put an end to the “New American Gulag” and the “theater of the absurd” masquerading as a “court” that operates within its bowels!

PWS

03-01-19

THE ASYLUMIST FINDS “MIXED BAG” IN U.S IMMIGRATION COURT DETAINED UNREPRESENTED ASYLUM CASES: Most U.S. Immigration Judges (& ICE Assistant Chief Counsel) Apparently Conduct Themselves Professionally, But Detained Unrepresented Asylum Seekers Are Being Systematically Denied Due Process — “[M]any of these pro se cases are not well developed and are lacking in evidence. This is because the cases we review are for individuals who are detained. If these people had access to a lawyer and could better prepare their cases, many—even most—would achieve a better outcome.”

http://www.asylumist.com/2019/02/25/when-the-judge-is-a-jerk/

Jason Dzubow writes:

The vast majority of Immigration Judges, DHS attorneys, Asylum Officers, and USCIS officers are professional and respectful. But what if they are not? What do you do then?

First off, I think it is important to understand that the bad officials are a small minority. I’ve been to many interviews and court hearings, and I’ve only ever made one complaint (against a USCIS officer at a Green Card interview). In other words, at least in my experience, government officials in immigration-world are generally pretty good.

Now admittedly, I am a lawyer and I know my clients’ rights and what to expect from “the system.” Pro se (unrepresented) applicants may not receive the same level of respect. They are easier to abuse, and it is more likely that decision-makers will cut corners in cases where the applicant is unable to protect herself.

That said, I am also involved in the BIA Pro Bono Project, where I review a dozen or so unrepresented appeals cases each month. I see the transcript of the Immigration Court case, and I can read how the Immigration Judge and the DHS attorney treated the applicant. While it is fairly common to see Judges and DHS attorneys moving quickly through a pro se hearing, it is also common to see these same officials taking extra time to ensure they are properly adjudicating the case. Once in a while, I see a case where the Judge steamrolled the proceedings to reach a quick decision, but that is the exception. In most cases, even those that were adjudicated quickly, the outcome seems fair, given the available evidence and testimony (one big caveat – many of these pro se cases are not well developed and are lacking in evidence. This is because the cases we review are for individuals who are detained. If these people had access to a lawyer and could better prepare their cases, many—even most—would achieve a better outcome).

The government takes your complaints very seriously.

While outright hostility and rule breaking seem quite rare, adjudicators can sometimes be testy, intimidating or unfriendly. What to do if you have the bad luck of encountering a hostile or impolite decision-maker?

The first thing to do is to remain calm. The demeanor of the decision-maker is often unrelated to the outcome of the case, and we have seen examples where an unfriendly officer issues a positive decision. Remember too that this person is not someone you will likely ever encounter again in your life. All you want from him is a favorable decision. Even if your experience at the interview is unpleasant or frightening, that won’t matter much if the case is granted. If you can keep your cool, answer all the questions, remain polite, and not lose your composure, you increase the likelihood of a good result. Getting angry, or arguing with the decision-maker is unlikely to get you the decision you want.

Second, make your record. This means, if you have something that you think is important to say, you should try to say it. In other words, don’t let an aggressive officer or judge intimidate you into silence. Court hearings and some USCIS interviews are recorded. Asylum Officers are supposed to write down everything you say (and if they do not write down what you say, you can complain to a supervisor). Even if you are ultimately prevented from saying something, if you indicate that you had something else to say, that exchange might be reviewed on appeal (or by a supervisor) and could result in a new trial or interview.

In making your record, you can be explicit. You can say to the judge or officer, “I think you are treating me unfairly because you are not allowing me to talk about X.” Say this politely and calmly, and it might soften the decision-maker’s stance. Say it aggressively, and you will likely harden the decision-maker’s position. I remember one case where the DHS attorney seemed (to me at least) to be taking a very aggressive position towards my asylum-seeker client. Finally, I simply asked (politely) why DHS was so opposed to asylum in the case. The attorney explained his motivation, which helped me better understand the case, and ultimately, the client received asylum.

Third, especially if you are unrepresented, you should write down what happened after the interview or court hearing. When things go wrong, it is important to try to understand what happened, and the more information you have, the better. If you write down what happened immediately, the information is more likely to be accurate. This will be useful if you later want someone else, like a lawyer, to review the case. It is also important if you need to make a formal complaint against the decision-maker.

Finally, if you feel you were subject to unfair treatment, you can make a complaint. Different forums have different procedures for complaining. For example, if you are with an Asylum Officer, you can ask to speak with a supervisor. You do this during the interview itself by telling the Asylum Officer that you would like to speak to a supervisor. For an Immigration Court case, you would typically contact the judge’s supervisor (called the Assistant Chief Immigration Judge) after the court hearing, or–more typically–you would just file an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Periodically, I receive decisions that I think are wrong or unfair, but my clients have never been subject to treatment by an Asylum Officer or Judge that warranted a complaint. I did make a complaint once about a USCIS officer. I spoke to the officer’s supervisor immediately after the interview, and then sent a written complaint directly to the supervisor. I do not know whether the officer herself was informed of the complaint (I never saw her again), but I do know that my client’s case was approved in short order.

Most Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers are professional and respectful, and so hopefully, you will never encounter an official who is treating you unfairly. But if you do, keep calm, remain respectful, and politely make the points you need to make. This is the best way to maximize your chances for a positive decision.

***********************************

There is a systemic problem here that must be resolved before the current Immigration Court System can be expanded. It isn’t “rocket science.” A competent Administration interested in Due Process, efficiency, and the rule of law would:

Reduce detention of asylum seekers to a bare minimum;
Work with NGOs and the private bar toward universal representation of asylum seekers (which also means basically “universal appearance at hearings”);
Establish positive precedents to guide Immigration Judges & ICE Counsel to work with the private bar to grant more well-documented cases to implement the generous intent of the Refugee Act of 1980;
Ultimately, establish robust refugee programs in the areas of the Northern Triangle (thus making it unnecessary for folks to travel to the border to apply) and authorize and encourage Asylum Officers to grant more asylum, withholding of removal, and/or Convention Against Torture applications, thus eliminating the need to place so many cases where protection is clearly warranted into Immigration Court.

As long as we insist on dealing with a humanitarian refugee situation as a bogus “law enforcement” issue, we will continue to fail and actually divert resources from real law enforcement. Contrary to the false narrative pushed by DHS officials before Congress, increasing arrivals of “families with children” is not a law enforcement crisis, although the way this Administration approaches it does waste law enforcement resources.

An Administration truly interested in solving problems could initially process most of these individuals promptly and fairly at or near Ports of Entry, and then send those found to have a “credible fear” on to interior locations where they could work with attorneys to develop and present their claims in Immigration Court. Those legitimately found to be without credible fear would be subject to “Summary Removal” without going to Immigration Court.

The vast bulk of the 1.1 million cases in the largely “artificially created” and unnecessary Immigration Court backlog could be removed from the docket through a sensible exercise of prosecutorial discretion or processed for other forms of relief through USCIS. With a reduced docket, the Immigration Courts with 475 Immigration Judges (if allowed to operate independently, without idiotic quotas or other inappropriate and unethical political interference) should be able to fairly process arriving asylum applicants, detainees, other “priority criminal cases,” and recent arrivals without relief on a reasonable 12-18 month cycle. (Note that many in the latter category would be subject to “summary removal” without going to Immigration Court.) The Border Patrol and ICE Investigations could then focus on real law enforcement issues.

We can diminish ourselves as a nation; but, that won’t stop human migration.

PWS

02-28-19

INSIDE THE ADMINISTRATION’S “KIDDIE GULAG:” Thousands Of Allegations Of Sexual Abuse Surface!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/26/politics/hhs-documents-minors-sexual-abuse/index.html

Sophie Tatum reports for CNN:

Washington (CNN)The Department of Health and Human Services received more than 4,500 complaints of sexual abuse against unaccompanied minors from 2014-2018, according to internal agency documents released Tuesday by Florida Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch.

In addition,1,303 complaints were reported to the Justice Department during that same time frame, according to the documents.

Deutch addressed the documents during a high-profile House hearing Tuesday on the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy that resulted in thousands of immigrant children being separated from their parents.

He said that the documents “demonstrate over the past three years, there have been 154 staff on unaccompanied minor, let me repeat that, staff on unaccompanied minor allegations of sexual assault.”

“This works out on average to one sexual assault by HHS staff on unaccompanied minor per week,” he added.

Axios first reported the documents.

“I am deeply concerned with documents that have been turned over by HHS that record a high number of sexual assaults on unaccompanied children in the custody of the Office of Refugee and Resettlement,” Deutch said. “Together, these documents detail an environment of systemic sexual assaults by staff on unaccompanied children.”

HHS spokesperson Caitlin Oakley addressed the reports in a statement, saying minors’ safety is a “top concern,” and noted that there are “rigorous standards” in place for employees, which include mandatory background checks.

“These are vulnerable children in difficult circumstances, and ORR fully understands its responsibility to ensure that each child is treated with the utmost care. When any allegations of abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect are made, they are taken seriously and ORR acts swiftly to investigate and respond,” Oakley said.

At the hearing Tuesday, HHS’ US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps commander, Jonathan White, defended his agency against accusations of sexual abuse when asked by Rep. Tom McClintock, a California Republican, to respond to allegations that they were all “but serial child molesters” during a “drive-by slander a few minutes ago.”

“We share concern that I think everyone in this room feels. Anytime a child is abused in the care of ORR is one too many,” White said.

He added that “the vast majority of allegations prove to be unfounded when they are investigated by state law enforcement and federal law enforcement and the state licensure authorities to whom we refer them.”

“It is important to note that I am not aware of a single instance anywhere of an allegation against the ORR federal staff for abuse of a child,” White said.

Some of the incidents that were reported to the Justice Department included allegations against staff members who were accused of having relationships with minors, unwanted sexual touching and showing the minors pornographic videos, according to Axios. Axios also reported that of the thousands of complaints, there were 178 accusations against the adult staff.

CNN’s Geneva Sands contributed to this report.

******************************************

The Administration’s responses sound like a cover up to me. And they were “coaxed out” by GOP Reps who appear eager not to have the abuses engendered by the Administration’s toxic immigration enforcement policies fully vetted. Seems doubtful, based on my decades of Government experience, that “where there are 4,500 reports of smoke, there are no fires.”

Additionally, lawyers from the DOJ were still in court this week advancing specious and disingenuous arguments for avoiding responsibility for unconstitutional child separation that their clients had intentionally caused.

In fairness, these problems also existed under the Obama Administration. But, faced with extensive evidence of a broken system, the Trump Administration “doubled down” on problematic practices.

Eventually, there will be accountability for the detention disaster. And, when it happens both the responsible officials and the GOP legislators who are trying so hard to cover up the truth should face a reckoning.

PWS

02-27-19

PERSPECTIVE: OUR FAILED IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT POLICIES LOOK JUST AS DUMB, SHORT-SIGHTED, & CRUEL FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BORDER!

https://apple.news/

Looking at deportation from south of the border, I saw our own flawed attitudes about migration more clearly

February 25, 2019

While reporting on deported Mexicans in that country’s capital, I saw the human cost of our failure to develop a thoughtful immigration policy.

By

By Tyrone Beason

Times staff reporter

MEXICO CITY — For the thousands of Mexicans who’ve been deported from the United States and who’ve chosen to rebuild their lives in this massive capital city, America represents “el otro lado,” Spanish for “the other side.”

On our side of the U.S./Mexico border, from Florida to Washington state, these repatriated Mexicans left behind jobs, loved ones and community ties.

On our side, they experienced the chaos and coldness of America’s immigration and deportation system, one that has shown little interest in broken families and the loss of economic viability, or the relative unsafety and cultural hostility toward migrants of all kinds that deported people face after returning to their native country.

Earlier this month, two of my Times colleagues and I traveled here, to the other side of America’s border crisis, to learn about life after deportation. The stories we heard, the hardships we came to understand and the grass roots efforts we learned about will all be presented soon in a special package in The Times.

But before I write about that, I wanted to write about the strange context in which we did our reporting.

There we were covering the real-life experience of being kicked out of the United States, during the same week that our president declared a state of emergency to prevent an imaginary army of Mexican and Central American migrants from barging in.

The way President Donald Trump describes it, we are at war with craven invaders who don’t want to play by America’s immigration rules.

From the vantage point of Mexico City, though, it seemed as if America had plunged deeper into a war with itself, in part because it can’t come up with sensible rules for a nation that has been built and sustained by immigrants and migrant workers — both free and captive.

People who live and work in the United States without legal documents do represent a special category of migrant, and they certainly know the risks.

But as I sat and listened to returnees in Mexico City — who had migrated to the United States with their families when they were minors, or who started their own families while on American soil in the years before being deported — the trauma of deportation and the complexity of the rebuilding process seemed more real.

We are good at sending people “back where they came from” for the crime of being here without papers and sometimes for committing other offenses that result in being considered unfit for legal residency. What we are not so good at is considering the possible injustice of forcing people back into countries that may not be equipped to reintegrate them, that may not even want to welcome them home, and that for all intents and purposes may not feel like “home” anymore.

Mexico City — a teetering metropolis that sits at an elevation of 7,300 feet and that’s more than 20 million people strong — is a hard place to navigate even for those who were born here and never left. It’s especially challenging for those who left years ago in search of a better life in America and now find themselves back here and needing to start over, in a city dealing with issues like poverty and corruption.

We met repatriated Mexicans who spoke like homies from around the way, who shook my hand with the soul-brother salute, who talked about the United States as if they had been born wrapped in red, white and blue, who are proudly making it work in the land of their ancestors while also displaying the spirit of their adoptive motherland up north.

In deportation cases, the decision can seem pretty cut-and-dry: Should they stay or should they go?

On the ground in the beautiful cacophony that is Mexico City, the overcrowded and smoggy incubator of dreams big and small, everything was a blur and there were nothing but gray areas.

It’s so easy in our society to portray immigrants who carry proper documentation as “good” and those who don’t have those documents as “bad,” but when our government behaves as if it doesn’t care about the aftereffects of the decision to expel someone from our soil — which seems to be the case right now — it is our character that’s in question.

Trump’s wall is not the only story. And immigration isn’t our only crisis.

We have a responsibility to be careful about who we let into this country, to be sure. But we also have to find a way to more humanely manage the detention, departure and reintegration of those we send away — to see them as human beings even when they have violated the integrity of our borders.

We can act as if the fate of undocumented migrants isn’t our problem, that they shouldn’t have come here under those circumstances in the first place.

But if we deal with the original sin of entering the United States illegally in such a clinical way, we will be committing the equal sin of heartlessness when humanity is due.

Justice is never truly blind.

Because of that, as we think about deportation, we should view this tough journey with our eyes wide open.

*********************************************

Callous treatment of those who might once have thought of our country as “home” is never a good idea. Not fully considering the human and political consequences of our own actions is the height of arrogance. It says to the world “who cares about others and what they think — we can do as we please because we’re the biggest and richest bullies on the block.”

Under Trump, the U.S. is faltering on most foreign policy fronts, unnecessarily alienating our potential friends and allies and “sucking up” to the worst and most dangerous strongmen in the world while getting little of verifiable value in return (notably, one of the worst among them, Putin, helped install Trump in his current position).

No country remains “on the top of the heap” forever. And, as our power and influence begin to wane under Trump’s erratic and incompetent hand, we might someday soon find that we need all the friends we can get, even outside our border, to maintain and regain our position and prestige in the world. Just ask the Brits about the perils of “going it alone” — or letting national policies be driven by irrational and self-defeating nativist sentiment.

PWS

02-26-19

INSIDE THE “NEW AMERICAN GULAG:” Conditions Are Cruel, Inhuman, Degrading, & Life-Threatening — Why Are We Funding The Perpetrators, Rather Holding Them Accountable & Demanding An End To Human Rights Abuses In America?

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-saadi-immigration-health-care-detention-facilities-2019025-story.html

Altaf Saadi, M.D., writes in the LA Times:

This week, a 45-year-old immigrant in the U.S. illegally died in Border Patrol custody. His death follows the December deaths of 7-year-old Jakelin Caal and 8-year-old Felipe Alonzo-Gomez in United States immigration custody, both of which prompted demands for improving healthcare for immigrants in detention.

As a physician who has evaluated dozens of individuals in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention for legal groups and human rights organizations, I know that high-profile deaths are only one small piece of the story of severely substandard healthcare in America’s immigration detention system.

For example, in one detention center I met and reviewed the medical records of a man who had been thriving and holding steady employment for years while on schizophrenia medications. Then he was picked up and detained by ICE. In detention, he told me, ICE personnel abruptly stopped his medications. After a nearly two-week delay, an alternative medication was prescribed, but it was not as effective. His mental health deteriorated, and he experienced worsening auditory hallucinations and suicidal thoughts. He attempted suicide four times.

Media reports of high-profile deaths capture only a sliver of the human rights violations occurring in detention.

Share quote & link

Another individual I met with and whose medical records I reviewed had longstanding hypothyroidism, but ICE failed to provide her with thyroid medication in detention. When she was first hospitalized for worsening mental health, her thyroid hormone level was 60 times higher than normal. Despite the hospital medical team’s explicit instructions, ICE still failed to provide her thyroid medication when she returned to detention. It was not until a second hospitalization, again with a critically abnormal thyroid hormone level, that she finally received her medication.

I also met with a man who had developed a stomach ulcer and vomited blood after ICE medical personnel gave him ibuprofen repeatedly for back pain — even though he had reported symptoms of severe heartburn. Any physician applying the proper standard of care would know to minimize prescribing ibuprofen to an individual with severe heartburn.

The kinds of problems I saw are in keeping with the type repeatedly documented by immigrant advocates, filed in litigation and contained in the government’s own reports. According to Freedom for Immigrants, a national advocacy group seeking to end immigration detention, the top complaint they hear from detained immigrants is medical neglect.

In addition, multiple Department of Homeland Security inspector general reports have concluded that detention facilities repeatedly fail to comply with federal standards, including those requiring adequate healthcare. In 2017, a report noted delays in the provision of healthcare and a lack of adequate documentation. And the problems extend beyond healthcare. A report in January 2019 cited more than 14,000 deficiencies found during inspections of 106 immigrant detention facilities nationwide between October 2015 and June 30, 2018.

Substandard conditions can significantly harm an individual’s health. Many of the individuals I met with said they experienced sleep deprivation from lights being kept on 24 hours a day. Some said they had to wear dirty prison uniforms that caused urinary and vaginal infections. Others complained of being served rotten or inadequate food, a violation of standards that has been repeatedly documented in inspection reports.

Enter the Fray: First takes on the news of the minute »

Some detainees also reported verbal and physical abuse by guards, which can significantly worsen the mental health of immigrant detainees. For example, during one of his acute mental health crises, the schizophrenic man I interviewed recalled banging his body against a wall as he wrestled with voices telling him to kill himself. He said a guard referred to his distress as a “tantrum” and told him to “get over it.”

Other detainees told me that staff used frequent racial epithets and also referred to them as “crazies,” or “Loony Tunes,” or “trash.” As one detainee put it: “They see us not like human but as animals here.”

Media reports of high-profile deaths capture only a sliver of the human rights violations occurring in detention. None of the patients I interviewed died from the dangerous neglect they experienced, and so their experiences didn’t garner headlines. But their experiences were dangerous — and not uncommon. We need to hold the U.S. government accountable not just for the deaths that occur of immigrants in their custody, but also for the neglect and abuse that can lead to or exacerbate serious health problems.

Altaf Saadi is a neurologist, clinical instructor of medicine, and fellow at the National Clinician Scholars Program at UCLA. She has performed numerous evaluations for the Physicians for Human Rights Asylum Network.

****************************************

I continue to think that the bipartisan Goverment funding bill was not the right place to deal with the “New American Gulag.” But, Democrats should “keep hammering” on this important “below the radar screen” issue. Making an oversight record of the many abuses, false narratives, cover-ups, and lies underlying the Gulag should be a high priority.

What meaningful civil immigration detention reform could look like:

A “hard cap” probably in the area of 10,000 to 15,000 detention slots;
An end to private detention;
Enactment of strict standards governing the conditions of civil immigration detention;
A specific requirement for proper health and psychiatric care for those detained;
A bar on detention being used for “deterrence” or “punishment;”
Change in the law to permit all individuals in civil immigration detention to seek release on bond in U.S. Immigration Court (obviously, the Immigration Judges would retain the discretion to deny bond on the merits where warranted by the facts) with review by an Article III Court;
Periodic bond hearings every six months for those in “long-term detention;”
A requirement that access to counsel be a primary consideration in establishing immigration detention sites, and that pro bono groups and NGOs be consulted and given an opportunity to comment before any new immigration detention centers are established;
An end to the regulatory practice of allowing ICE Counsel to unilaterally block the order of a U.S. Immigration Judge pending appeal of a decision to release on bond (the Immigration Judge and the BIA would retain discretion to grant stays pending appeal, where appropriate, on application by ICE);
A statutory presumption in favor of ankle monitoring and other “alternatives to detention,” with physical detention being a disfavored, “last resort:”
Accountability for how detention dollars are spent and consequences for those in DHS and DOJ, including political officials, who violate or evade the law, including intentional falsification or misrepresentation of statistics, or who fail to implement the mandated reforms in a timely and reasonable manner.

Remember folks, these aren’t “beds,” or other “pieces of furniture;” these are fellow human beings, most of whose “offenses” consist largely of seeking to exercise their legal rights to fair treatment and Due Process under our laws and our Constitution!

PWS

02-25-19

PINOCCHIO 4.0: Stephen Miller Spews Forth Lies About Immigrants & Crime From White House Perch!🤥🤥🤥🤥

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/21/stephen-millers-claim-that-thousand-americans-die-year-after-year-illegal-immigration/

The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” Glenn Kessler reports:

“This is a deep intellectual problem that is plaguing this city, which is that we’ve had thousands of Americans die year after year after year because of threats crossing our southern border.”

— Stephen Miller, senior adviser to President Trump, in an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” Feb. 17, 2019

This article has been updated with a comment from the White House

Miller slipped this line in the final seconds of his contentious interview with host Chris Wallace over President Trump’s emergency declaration to fund a wall along the southern border, so some viewers might have missed it. But it’s an astonishing statement, suggesting that undocumented immigrants kill thousands of Americans every year.

The White House did not respond to a query concerning Miller’s math, but other anti-immigration advocates have made similar claims. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) claimed in December that there are “thousands of Americans who are dead each year because [of] the Democrats’ refusal to secure our borders.” President Trump claimed in 2018 that 63,000 Americans have been killed by illegal immigrants since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, which works out to about 3,700 a year.

But there is no evidence these claims are true. In fact, the available evidence suggests these claims are false. This is a good example about how a paucity of data allows political advocates to jump to conclusions.

The Facts

First, some context: There is no nationwide data set on crime committed by undocumented immigrants, so researchers have tried to tease the answer from less-than-complete data. Yet study after study shows that illegal immigration does not lead to increased crime, violence or drug problems. In fact, the studies indicate that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans.

A 2018 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Criminology, led by Michael Light, a criminologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, examined whether places with higher percentages of undocumented immigrants have higher rates of violent crime such as murder or rape. The answer: States with larger shares of undocumented immigrants tended to have lower crime rates than states with smaller shares in the years 1990 through 2014. Similar results were found in another peer-reviewed study by the same researchers that looked at nonviolent crime, such as drug arrests and driving under the influence (DUI) arrests.

Similarly, the libertarian Cato Institute in 2018 looked at 2015 criminal conviction data among undocumented immigrants in Texas — one of the few states to record whether a person who has been arrested is in the country illegally or not. Researcher Alex Nowrastehfound that criminal conviction and arrest rates in Texas for undocumented immigrants were lower than those of native-born Americans for homicide, sexual assault and larceny.

“As a percentage of their respective populations, there were 50 percent fewer criminal convictions of illegal immigrants than of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015,” Nowrasteh wrote. “The criminal conviction rate for legal immigrants was about 66 percent below the native-born rate.”

In 2015, there were 785 total homicide convictions in Texas. Of those, native-born Americans were convicted of 709 homicides (a conviction rate of 3.1 per 100,000), illegal immigrants were convicted of 46 homicides (2.6 per 100,000), and legal immigrants were convicted of 30 homicides (1 per 100,000). In other words, homicide conviction rates for illegal and legal immigrants were 16 percent and 67 percent below those of native-born Americans, respectively.

Some advocates of restraining immigration have sought to make the case that undocumented immigrants commit more crimes by relying on data from the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), a federal program that offers states and localities some reimbursement for the cost of incarcerating certain criminal non-U. S. citizens. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in July issued an updated report on SCAAP data, but GAO (and SCAAP) only counts total incarcerations, not individuals. Thus the numbers are not helpful for drawing conclusions about the criminality of undocumented immigrants.

In other words, the available research indicates that, when compared with U.S. citizens, illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes. But we understand that some people might argue that any crime committed by an illegal alien is one too many. Miller is involved in a counting exercise — thousands of deaths that in theory would not otherwise have happened if the undocumented immigrant had not set foot on U.S. soil.

But the available evidence does not support a count of thousands of deaths a year, either.

Nowrasteh pointed The Fact Checker to the Texas data. For the five years from 2014 through the end of 2018, there were 200 homicide convictions of illegal immigrants. We’ll assume each conviction represents one person, although, of course, someone could have been convicted of multiple murders.

According to the Department of Homeland Security Estimate of the Illegal Alien Population Residing in the United States in January 2015, there were 1.9 million illegal residents in Texas, or about 16 percent of the 12 million undocumented immigrants estimated by the agency nationwide. If one assumes that the homicide conviction rate is the same across the country — admittedly a big assumption — then that adds up to 1,250 homicide convictions over a five-year period, or 250 a year.

In the same five-year period, there were about 75,000 murders in the United States. The United States has a 70 percent conviction rate for murder, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, so that translates to illegal immigrants accounting for about 2.3 percent of homicide convictions from 2014 to 2018 while accounting for about 3.8 percent of the population.

Miller said “thousands of Americans” die each year. People tend to murder who they know and live with, so odds are many of these 250 or so murders are of other illegal immigrants, not Americans.

While the White House did not respond to a query about where Miller got his calculation, we should note that Brooks has justified his figure by citing people “murdered by illegal aliens, vehicular homicides by illegal aliens, or the illegal narcotics that are shipped into our country by illegal aliens and their drug cartels.”

That slippery wording can be used to justify just about any American death from heroin. But while 90 percent of the heroin sold in the United States comes from Mexico, virtually all of it comes through legal points of entry. “A small percentage of all heroin seized by [Customs and Border Protection] along the land border was between Ports of Entry (POEs),” the Drug Enforcement Administration said in a 2018 report.

Miller spoke vaguely about “threats crossing our southern border,” adding: “We have families and communities that are left unprotected and undefended. We have international narco terrorist organizations.” The clear implication, especially with the use of the word “terrorist,” was that people were being murdered. Adding drug deaths to the total is not justifiable given that Trump’s proposed wall would not stem the flow of drugs.

There’s a website of victims that says it’s “in honor of the thousands of American citizens killed each year by Illegal Aliens.” There are entries as recently as January, but fewer than 300 people are listed even though entries date as far back as 1994. The anecdotal stories are moving, but one would expect a much longer list if thousands of people were really killed each year.

Update, Feb. 22: A day after this fact check was published, we received the following statement from White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley:

“Stephen Miller’s comment is 100 percent correct because, sadly, thousands die every year from threats crossing our Southern Border. In the last two years alone, ICE arrested criminal aliens charged or convicted of approximately 4,000 homicides (and those are only the offenders authorities could track down). Three hundred Americans die every week from heroin overdoses – 90 percent of which enters from the Southern Border – and that horrific number doesn’t even take into account deaths from cocaine, fentanyl and meth pouring across at record amounts. This is a dangerous and deadly situation that needlessly kills thousands of Americans every single year – and while the sad statistical truth may not aid the Washington Post’s political agenda, the fact remains.”

(Regular readers know that this 4,000 figure is misleading in this context. It conflates charges and convictions, and there is no indication how long ago homicides may have taken place. As we noted, most drugs come through ports of entry.)

The Pinocchio Test

Miller is the senior presidential adviser responsible for immigration policy in the White House, so it’s especially important for him to stick to verifiable facts on such an important issue. There’s no evidence that thousands of Americans are killed by undocumented immigrants, especially in light of credible studies showing they commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans. He earns Four Pinocchios.

Four Pinocchios

**************************************************

“Fact checking” Trump, Miller, and the rest of the “Band of Liars,” particularly on immigration issues, must be more than a full-time job. But, as shown by the Mueller investigation, lying early and often, and then “lying about lying,” appears to be a “standard business practice” for Trump and his cronies.

Migrants, whether documented or undocumented, are not a threat to our national security. But, Trump & Miller are a “clear and present danger.”

PWS

02/25/19

MARIA SACCHETTI @ WASHPOST: Substantial Majority Of Those Migrants Detained in Trump’s “New American Gulag” Have No Criminal Record!

tohhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/national/when-trump-declared-national-emergency-most-detained-immigrants-were-not-criminals/2019/02/22/a332480e-36ad-11e9-a400-e481bf264fdc_story.html

Maria writes:

Before President Trump declared a national emergency on the U.S. southern border on Feb. 15, he cited concerns that the United States was being flooded with murderers, kidnappers and other violent offenders from foreign countries.

According to new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement figures obtained by The Washington Post, the nation’s immigration jails were not filled with such criminals. As of Feb. 9, days before the president’s declaration, nearly 63 percent of the detainees in ICE jails had not been convicted of any crime.

Of the 48,793 immigrants jailed on Feb. 9, the ICE data shows, 18,124 had criminal records. An additional 5,715 people had pending criminal charges, officials said, but they did not provide details. ICE also did not break down the severity of the crimes committed by or attributed to detainees.

An average of 59 percent of detainees in custody during this fiscal year had no criminal history, according to ICE.

“It proves this is a fake emergency,” said Kevin Appleby, policy director at the Center for Migration Studies, a New York-based nonpartisan immigration think tank. “It really shows that what the president’s doing is abusing his power based on false information.”

. . . .

*********************************

Read Maria’s complete article at the above link.

We know that most of the migrants held in the “New American Gulag” (“NAG”) are neither security threats nor realistic dangers to our communities. From my experience many of those held because they are “criminals” have either relatively minor offenses (e.g., driving without a license) or even if the offenses were more serious have long ago completed criminal sentences and have been free in society without recurring problems.

So, why are the “non-criminals” being held in the NAG? Well, DHS would say it’s because they are threats to “abscond” before hearings, citing highly questionable “self-fulfilling” numbers opaquely generated by EOIR and DHS. But outside studies of DHS and EOIR statistics have shown a much different picture.

Individuals with lawyers and applications filed, particularly for asylum, who have the system and their obligations thereunder carefully explained to them in their own language, show up almost all the time for Immigration Court.

Likewise, migrants released on moderate bonds (in the $1.5 to $5K range — much lower than the current “national average”) also appear with regularity, as do those with ankle monitors and other “alternatives to detention.”

Thus, a reasonable Administration genuinely interested in the integrity of the Immigration Court process would severely curtail the use of civil immigration detention, particularly by private entities, which is both wastefully expensive and inhumane.

Instead, they would rely on a proven combination of lower-cost, more humane, and due process promoting alternatives: getting applicants matched with lawyers, pro bono, low bono, or paid; encouraging individuals to locate in communities where lawyers, family resources, and NGOs are available; and using reasonable bonds, ankle monitors and other types of “call in monitoring” to help insure appearance at further hearings.

An improved Immigration Court system where all judges were uniformly fair, impartial, and courteous to applicants and their lawyers, and where asylum was granted more generously in accordance with the standards set forth in the Refugee Act of 1980, the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the BIA’s precedent in Matter of Mogharrabi, and the regulations establishing a strong presumption of future persecution for those who have been persecuted in the past would also help.

Hope tends to draw people. Hostility and bias understandably tend to repel them. As long as we have a U.S. Immigration Court that tolerates, and even aids, abets, and encourages, some biased, anti-asylum, unprofessional judges in the “Jeff Sessions mode” who deny asylum at rates exceeding 90%, it will lack credibility.

Without credibility and a demonstrable commitment to fairness, impartiality, and due process above the DHS’s and the Administration’s often questionable and other times downright bogus “enforcement priorities,” the system will continue to fail our country, inflict unjustifiable harm and suffering on the most vulnerable among us, and indirectly harm every one of us who believes in Constitutional Government and a firm commitment to respecting human rights. Critical examination of the Government’s positions against a rigorous standard of legality, reasonableness, and fundamenal fairness under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution is essential to an independent judiciary. It isn’t happening in today’s “captive” Immigration Courts. That’s a national disgrace that must be fixed.

PWS

02-23-19

COURTING DISASTER: NEW AILA REPORT SHREDS DOJ’S “BUILT TO FAIL” IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOG REDUCTION PROGRAM — “Malicious Incompetence” Turns Tragedy To Travesty! — McKinney, Lynch, Creighton, & Schmidt Do Press Conference Exposing Injustice, Waste, Abuse — Listen To Audio Here!

OUR TEAM:

Jeremy McKinney, Attorney, Greensboro, NC, AILA National Treasurer

Laura Lynch, Senior Policy Counsel, AILA,

Emily Creighton, Deputy Legal Director, American Immigration Council

Paul Wickham Schmidt, Retired U.S. Immigration Judge

Read the AILA Report (with original formatting) at the link below:

19021900

FOIA Reveals EOIR’s Failed Plan for Fixing the Immigration Court Backlog February 21, 2019
Contact: Laura Lynch (llynch@aila.org) 1
On December 19, 2018, AILA and the American Immigration Council obtained a partially redacted memorandum through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), entitled the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan (hereinafter “EOIR’s plan”). EOIR’s plan, which was approved by the Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice (DOJ) on October 31, 2017,2 states that the overarching goal was “to significantly reduce the case backlog by 2020.” 3 In the following months, DOJ and EOIR implemented the plan by rolling out several policy initiatives, including multiple precedent-setting opinions issued by then-Attorney General (AG) Jeff Sessions.
Contrary to EOIR’s stated goals, the administration’s policies have contributed to an increase in the court backlog which exceeded 820,000 cases at the end of 2018.4 This constitutes a 25 percent increase in the backlog since the introduction of EOIR’s plan.5 For example, the October 2017 memorandum reveals that EOIR warned DOJ that the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) potential activation of almost 350,000 low priority cases or cases that were not ready to be adjudicated could balloon the backlog.6 Nonetheless, then-AG Sessions ignored these concerns and issued a decision that essentially stripped immigration judges (IJs) of their ability to administratively close cases and compelled IJs to reopen previously closed cases at Immigrations Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) request.7
The policies EOIR implemented as part of this backlog reduction plan have severely undermined the due process and integrity of the immigration court system. EOIR has placed enormous pressure on IJs by setting strict case quotas on and restricting their ability to manage their dockets more efficiently. This approach treats the complex process of judging like an assembly line and makes it more likely that judges will not give asylum seekers and others appearing before the courts enough time to gather evidence to support their claims. People appearing before the courts will also have less time to find legal counsel, which has been shown to be a critical, if not the single most important factor, in determining whether an asylum seeker is able to prove eligibility for legal protection.
The foundational purpose of any court system must be to ensure its decisions are rendered fairly, consistent with the law and the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. Efforts to improve efficiency are also important but cannot be implemented at the expense of these fundamental principles. EOIR’s plan has not only failed to reduce the backlog but has eroded the court’s ability to ensure due process. Furthermore, EOIR’s plan demonstrates the enormous power DOJ exerts over the immigration court system. Until Congress creates an immigration court that is separate and independent from DOJ, those appearing before the court will be confronted with a flawed system that is severely compromised in its ability to ensure fair and consistent adjudications.
I. Background on EOIR’s Inherently Flawed Structure
The U.S. immigration court system suffers from profound structural problems that have severely eroded both its capacity to deliver just and fair decisions in a timely manner and public confidence in the system
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)

itself.8 Unlike other judicial bodies, the immigration courts lack independence from the Executive Branch. The immigration courts are administered by EOIR, which is housed within DOJ – the same agency that prosecutes immigration cases at the federal level. This inherent conflict of interest is made worse by the fact that IJs are not classified as judges but as government attorneys, a classification that fails to recognize the significance of their judicial duties and puts them under the control of the AG, the chief prosecutor in immigration cases. The current administration has taken advantage of the court’s structural flaws, introducing numerous policies — including EOIR’s plan — that dramatically reshape federal immigration law and undermine due process in immigration court proceedings.
II. Policies Identified in EOIR’s Plan
Administrative Closure
Stated Policy Goal: To reduce the case backlog and maximize docket efficiency, EOIR’s plan called for the strengthening of EOIR and DHS interagency cooperation.9 EOIR’s plan advised DOJ that “any burst of case initiation by a DHS component could seriously compromise EOIR’s ability to address its caseload and greatly exacerbate the current state of the backlog.”10
Reality: Despite EOIR’s warning, then-AG Sessions issued a precedent decision in Matter of Castro Tum,11 which contributed to a rise in the case backlog. This decision severely restricts a judge’s ability to schedule and prioritize their cases, otherwise known as “administrative closure” and even compels IJs to reopen previously closed cases at ICE’s request.12
Administrative closure is a procedural tool that IJs and the BIA use to temporarily halt removal proceedings by transferring a case from active to inactive status on a court’s docket. This tool is particularly useful in situations where IJs cannot complete the case until action is taken by USCIS or another DHS component, state courts and other authorities. Prior to the issuance of Matter of Castro Tum, numerous organizations, including the judges themselves, warned DOJ that stripping IJs of the ability to utilize this docket management tool “will result in an enormous increase in our already massive backlog of cases.”13 In fact, an EOIR-commissioned report identified administrative closure as a helpful tool to control the caseload and recommended that EOIR work with DHS to implement a policy to administratively close cases awaiting adjudication in other agencies or courts.14
Nonetheless, the former AG issued Matter of Castro Tum15 sharply curtailing IJs’ ability to administratively close cases. The decision even called for cases that were previously administratively closed cases to be put back on the active immigration court dockets.16 In August 2018, ICE directed its attorneys to file motions to recalendar “all cases that were previously administratively closed…” with limited exceptions—potentially adding a total of 355,835 cases immediately onto the immigration court docket.17 Three months later, ICE had already moved to recalendar 8,000 cases that had previously been administratively closed, contributing to the bloated immigration court case backlog.18 In response, members of Congress sent a letter to DOJ and DHS outlining their concerns about ICE’s plans to recalendar potentially hundreds of thousands of administratively closed cases, further clogging the system and delaying and denying justice to the individuals within it.19
Quotas and Deadlines
Stated Policy Goal: To expedite adjudications, EOIR’s plan calls for the development of caseload
management goals and benchmarks.20
Reality: EOIR imposed unprecedented case completion quotas and deadlines on IJs, that pressure judges to complete cases rapidly at the expense of balanced, well-reasoned judgment.21
2
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)

At the time EOIR’s plan was issued, EOIR’s collective bargaining agreement with the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) prohibited “the use of any type of performance metrics in evaluating an IJ’s performance.”22 Despite opposition from NAIJ,23 DOJ and EOIR imposed case completion quotas and time-based deadlines on IJs, tying their individual performance reviews to the number of cases they complete.24 Among other requirements, IJs must complete 700 removal cases in the next year or risk losing their jobs.25 Disturbingly, DOJ unveiled new software, resembling a “speedometer on a car” employed to track the completion of IJs’ cases.26
Sample Image of “IJ Performance Data Dashboard”
(Source: Vice News)27
AILA, the American Immigration Council, and other legal organizations and scholars oppose the quotas that have been described by the NAIJ as a “death knell for judicial independence.”28 The purported argument for these policies is that it will speed the process up for the judges. However, applying this kind of blunt instrument will compel judges to rush through decisions and may compromise a respondent’s right to due process and a fair hearing. Given that most respondents do not speak English as their primary language, a strict time frame for completion of cases interferes with a judge’s ability to assure that a person’s right to examine and present evidence is respected.29
These policies also impact asylum seekers, who may need more time to gather evidence that is hard to obtain from their countries of origin, as well as unrepresented individuals, who may need more time to obtain an attorney. The Association of Pro Bono Counsel explained that the imposition of case completion quotas and deadlines “will inevitably reduce our ability to provide pro bono representation to immigrants in need of counsel.”30 Unrepresented people often face hurdles in court that can cause case delays, and scholars have concluded that immigrants with attorneys fare better at every stage of the court process.31 Furthermore, these policies compel IJs to rush through decisions may result in errors which will lead to an increase in appeals and federal litigation, further slowing down the process.
Continuances
Stated Policy Goal: To “streamline current immigration proceedings”32 and “process cases more
efficiently,”33 EOIR’s plan called for changes in the use of continuances in immigration court.34
Reality: The restrictions DOJ and EOIR placed on the use of continuances make it far more difficult for immigrants to obtain counsel and interfere with judges’ ability to use their own discretion in each case.
EOIR and DOJ introduced policies that pressure judges to deny more continuances at the expense of due process. In July 2017, the Chief IJ issued a memorandum which pressures IJs to deny multiple continuances, including continuances to find an attorney or for an attorney to prepare for a case.35 Following this policy change, then-AG Sessions issued the precedential decision, Matter of L-A-B-R- et al., interfering with an IJ’s ability to grant continuance requests and introducing procedural hurdles that will also make it harder for people to request and IJs to grant continuances.36
3
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)

These policy changes weaken due process protections and contradict the agency’s plan to “improve existing laws and policies.” Continuances represent a critical docketing management tool for IJs and are a necessary means to ensure that due process is afforded in removal proceedings. The number one reason respondents request continuances is to find counsel, who play a critical role in ensuring respondents receive a fair hearing.37 Continuances are particularly important to recent arrivals, vulnerable populations (such as children), and non-English speakers—all of whom have significant difficulties navigating an incredibly complex immigration system. Furthermore, individuals represented by counsel contribute to more efficient court proceedings. NAIJ’s President, Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, explained, “It is our experience, when noncitizens are represented by competent counsel, Immigration Judges are able to conduct proceedings more expeditiously and resolve cases more quickly.”38
Video Teleconferencing (VTC)
Stated Policy Goal: To expand its adjudicatory capacity, EOIR called for pilot VTC “immigration
adjudication centers.”39
Reality: EOIR expanded the use of VTC for substantive hearings undermining the quality of communication and due process.
A 2017 report commissioned by EOIR concluded that court proceedings by VTC should be limited to “procedural matters” because appearances by VTC may lead to “due process issues.”40 Despite these concerns, EOIR expanded use of VTC for substantive hearings. A total of fifteen IJs currently sit in two immigration adjudication centers—four in Falls Church, Virginia, and eleven in Fort Worth, Texas.41 IJs are currently stationed at these “centers” where they adjudicate cases from around the country from a remote setting.42
For years, legal organizations such as AILA and the American Bar Association (ABA) have opposed use of VTC to conduct in immigration merits hearings, except in matters in which the noncitizen has given consent.43 Technological glitches such as weak connections and bad audio can make it difficult to communicate effectively, and 29 percent of EOIR staff reported that VTC caused meaningful delay.44 Additionally, VTC technology does not provide for the ability to transmit nonverbal cues. Such issues can impact an IJs’ assessment of an individual’s credibility and demeanor, which are significant factors in determining appropriate relief.45 Moreover, use of VTC for immigration hearings also limits the ability for attorneys to consult confidentially with their clients. No matter how high-quality or advanced the technology is that is used during a remote hearing, such a substitute is not equivalent to an in-person hearing and presents significant due process concerns.
IJ Hiring
Stated Policy Goal: In order to increase the IJ corps and reduce the amount of time to hire new
IJs, the former AG introduced a new, streamlined IJ hiring process.46
Reality: Following DOJ’s implementation of the streamlined IJ hiring process, DOJ faced allegations of politicized and discriminatory hiring47 that call into question the fundamental fairness of immigration court decisions.
On its face, the agency “achieved” its goal to quickly hire more IJs, reducing the time it takes to onboard new IJs by 74 percent and increasing the number of IJs on the bench from 338 IJs at the end of FY2017 to 414 IJs by the end of 2018.48 What these statistics do not reveal is that the new plan amended hiring processes to provide political appointees with greater influence in the final selection of IJs.49 In addition to procedural changes, DOJ also made substantive changes to IJ hiring requirements, “over-emphasizing litigation experience to the exclusion of other relevant immigration law experience.”50 Both Senate and
4
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)

House Democrats requested an investigation with the DOJ Inspector General (IG) to examine allegations that DOJ has targeted candidates and withdrawn or delayed offers for IJ and BIA positions based on their perceived political or ideological views.51 These allegations are particularly troublesome given the influx in the number of IJs resigning and reports that experienced IJs are “being squeezed out of the system for political reasons.”52
Telephonic Interpreters
Stated Policy Goal: EOIR requested additional funding to support additional IJs on staff and to
improve efficiency.53
Reality: EOIR failed to budget for needed in-person interpreters54 resulting in the use of telephonic interpreters for most hearings, which raises concerns about hearing delays and potential communication issues.55
In April of 2017, an EOIR-commissioned report revealed that 31 percent of court staff reported that telephonic interpreters caused a meaningful delay in their ability to proceed with their daily responsibilities.56 With more than 85 percent of respondents in immigration court relying on use of an interpreter, EOIR’s decision to replace in-person interpreters with telephonic interpreters will undoubtedly make court room procedures less efficient.57 In addition, similar to many of the technological concerns cited with use of VTC, communication issues related to use of remote interpreters can jeopardize an immigrant’s right to a fair day in court. For example, it is impossible for telephonic interpreters to catch non-verbal cues that may determine the meaning of the speech.
III. Conclusion
The immigration court system is charged with ensuring that individuals appearing before the court receives a fair hearing and full review of their case consistent with the rule of law and fundamental due process. Instead of employing policies that propel the court toward these goals, the administration’s plan relies on policies that compromise due process. IJs responsible for adjudicating removal cases are being pressured to render decisions at a break-neck pace. By some accounts “morale has never, ever been lower” among IJs and their staff.58 Moreover, since the introduction of EOIR’s plan, the number of cases pending in the immigration courts has increased 25 percent (from 655,932 on 9/31/17 to 821,726 on 12/31/18). This number does not even account for the 35-day partial government shutdown that cancelled approximately 60,000 hearings while DHS continued carrying out enforcement actions.59 Congress must conduct rigorous oversight into the administration’s policies that have eroded the court’s ability to ensure that decisions are rendered fairly, consistent with the law and the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. But oversight is not enough. In order protect and advance America’s core values of fairness and equality, the immigration court must be restructured outside of the control of DOJ, in the form of an independent Article I court.60
900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000
0
792,738 821,726
655,932 521,416
460,021 430,095
356,246
PENDING IMMIGRATION CASES
EOIR Pending Cases
5
Pending cases equals removal, deportation, exclusion, asylum-only, and AILA Doc. No. w1it9hh0o2ld1in9g0o0nl.y. (Po
Source: Department of Justice
sted 2/21/19)

1 For more information, contact AILA Senior Policy Counsel Laura Lynch at (202) 507-7627 or llynch@aila.org.
2 *An earlier version of this policy brief, dated February 19, 2019, incorrectly stated that the memo was signed on October 17, 2017. This typo has been corrected. FOIA Response, see pg. 9.
3 On December 5, 2017, EOIR publicly issued a backgrounder for the EOIR Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan. U.S. Department of Justice Backgrounder, EOIR Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan, Dec. 5, 2017.
4 U.S. Department of Justice, EOIR Adjudication Statistics, Pending Cases, (Dec. 31, 2018). The over 820,000 cases does not account for the 35-day partial government shutdown that cancelled approximately 60,000 immigration court hearings while at the same time, DHS continued carrying out enforcement actions, Associated Press, Partial shutdown delayed 60,000 immigration court hearings, Feb. 8, 2019.
5 U.S. Department of Justice, Adjudication Statistics, Pending Cases, Dec. 31, 2018.
6 FOIA Response, see pg. 6.
7 Jason Boyd, The Hill, “8,000 new ways the Trump administration is undermining immigration court independence,” Aug. 19, 2018.
8 ABA Commission on Immigration, Reforming the Immigration System, Proposals to Promote the Independence, Fairness, Efficiency, and Professionalism in the Adjudication of Removal Cases (2010).
9 FOIA Response, see pg. 6. See also U.S. Department of Justice Backgrounder, EOIR Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan, Dec. 5, 2017.
10 FOIA Response, see pg. 6.
11 Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018).
12 Id.
13 NAIJ Letter to then-Attorney General Sessions, Jan. 30, 2018.
14 AILA and The American Immigration Council FOIA Response, Booz Allen Hamilton Report on Immigration Courts, Apr. 6, 2017, pg. 26, [hereinafter “Booz Allen Report”].
15 Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018).
16 Id.
17 ICE Provides Guidance to OPLA Attorneys on Administrative Closure Following Matter of Castro Tum, June 15, 2018.
18 Hamed Aleaziz, Buzzfeed News, “The Trump Administration is Seeking to Restart Thousands of Closed Deportation Cases,” Aug. 15, 2018.
19 Congressional Letter Requesting Information Regarding Initiative to Recalendar Administratively Closed Cases, Sept. 13, 2018.
20 FOIA Response, see pg. 5.
21 Memorandum from James McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review on Immigration Judge Performance Metrics to All Immigration Judges, March 30, 2018.
22 FOIA Response, see pg. 5.
23 Misunderstandings about Immigration Judge “Quotas” in Testimony Before House Appropriations Committee, NAIJ, May 2, 2018.
24 FOIA Response, pg. 5. See also Memorandum from James McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review on Immigration Judge Performance Metrics to All Immigration Judges, March 30, 2018; See also Imposing Quotas on Immigration Judges will Exacerbate the Case Backlog at Immigration Courts, NAIJ, Jan. 31, 2018. See also Misunderstandings about Immigration Judge “Quotas” in Testimony Before House Appropriations Committee, NAIJ, May 2, 2018.
25 See Memorandum from James McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review on Immigration Judge Performance Metrics to All Immigration Judges, March 30, 2018.
26 C-SPAN, Federal Immigration Court System, Sept. 21, 2018. (“[t]his past week or so, they [EOIR] unveiled what’s called the IJ dashboard…this mechanism on your computer every morning that looks like a speedometer on a car… The goal is for you to be green but of course you see all of these reds in front of you and there is a lot of anxiety attached to that.” NAIJ President, Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor).
27 Ani Ucar, Vice News, “Leaked Report Shows the Utter Dysfunction of Baltimore’s Immigration Court,” Oct. 3, 2018.
28 AILA and the American Immigration Council Statement, DOJ Strips Immigration Courts of Independence, Apr. 3, 2018. See also NAIJ, Threat to Due Process and Judicial Independence Caused by Performance Quotas on Immigration Judges (October 2017).
29 INA §240(b)(4)(B) requires that a respondent be given a “reasonable opportunity” to examine and present evidence.
6
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)

30 Association of Pro Bono Counsel (APBCo), Letter to Congress IJ Quotas, Oct. 26, 2017.
31 Ingrid Eagly and Steven Shafer, Access to Counsel in Immigration Court (2016).
32 U.S. Department of Justice Backgrounder, EOIR Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan, Dec. 5, 2017, pg. 2.
33 FOIA Response, pg. 8.
34 FOIA Response, pgs. 7-8.
35 U.S. Department of Justice, Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 17-01: Continuances, July 31, 2017. 36 Matter of L-A-B-R- et al., 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018).
37 GAO Report, 17-438, Immigration Courts, Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Challenges, (June 2017).
38 Sen. Mazie Hirono, Written Questions for the Record, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Apr. 18, 2018.
39 FOIA Response, pg. 3.
40 Booz Allen Report, pg. 23.
41 U.S. Department of Justice, EOIR Immigration Court Listings, Feb. 2019.
42 Katie Shepherd, American Immigration Council, The Judicial Black Sites the Government Created to Speed Up Deportations, Jan. 7, 2019.
43 AILA Comments on ACUS Immigration Removal Adjudications Report, May 3, 2012; ABA Letter to ACUS, Feb. 17, 2012.
44 Booz Allen Report, pg. 23.
45 An EOIR commissioned report suggested limiting use of VTC to procedural matters only because it is difficult for judges to analyze eye contact, nonverbal forms of communication, and body language over VTC. Booz Allen Report, pg. 23.
46 FOIA Response, pg. 3.
47 Priscilla Alvarez, The Atlantic, Jeff Sessions is Quietly Transforming the Nation’s Immigration Courts, Oct. 17, 2018.
48 U.S. Department of Justice, EOIR Adjudication Statistic, IJ Hiring, (Jan. 2019).
49 U.S. Department of Justice, EOIR Announces Largest Ever Immigration Judge Investiture, Sept. 28, 2018; Document Obtained via FOIA by Human Rights First, Memorandum for the Attorney General, Immigration Judge Hiring Process, Apr. 4, 2017.
50 Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System, Hearing Before Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration, of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 115th Cong. 5 (2018) (A. Ashley Tabaddor, President, NAIJ), See also Questions for the Record.
51 Senate and House Democrats Request IG Investigation of Illegal Hiring Allegations at DOJ, May 8, 2018. Problematic hiring practices are not new for this agency. Over a decade ago, the IG and the Office of Professional Responsibility revealed that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales utilized political and ideological considerations in the hiring of IJ and BIA candidates. U.S Department of Justice IG Report, (2008).
52 Hamed Aleaziz, BuzzFeed News, Being an Immigration Judge Was Their Dream. Under Trump, It Became Untenable, Feb. 13, 2019.
53 FOIA Response, pg. 3.
54 NAIJ Letter to Senators, Government Shutdown, Jan. 9, 2019.
55 Id.
56 Booz Allen Report, pg. 25.
57 Laura Abel, Brennan Center For Justice, Language Access in Immigration Courts, (2010).
58 Hamed Aleaziz, Buzzfeed News, “The Trump Administration is Seeking to Restart Thousands of Closed Deportation Cases,” Aug. 15, 2018.
59 Associated Press, Partial shutdown delayed 60,000 immigration court hearings, Feb. 8, 2019.
60 AILA Statement, The Need for an Independent Immigration Court Grows More Urgent as DOJ Imposes Quotas on Immigration Judges, Oct. 1, 2018. See also the NAIJ letter that joins AILA, the ABA, the Federal Bar Association, the American Adjudicature Society, and numerous other organizations endorsing the concept of an Article I immigration court. NAIJ Letter, Endorses Proposal for Article I Court, Mar. 15, 2018.
7
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)

Here’s the link to the audio:

https://www.aila.org/infonet/aila-press-call-on-eoir-memo-obtained-via-foia

****************************************

Here’s “simul-coverage” from LA Times star reporter Molly O’Toole:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-immigration-court-backlog-worsens-20190221-story.html

The Trump administration’s controversial plan to shrink the ballooning backlog of immigration cases by pushing judges to hear more cases has failed, according to the latest data, with the average wait for an immigration hearing now more than two years.

Since October 2017, when the Justice Department approved a plan aimed at reducing the backlog in immigration court, the pending caseload has grown by more than 26%, from 655,932 cases to just shy of 830,000, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Access Records Clearinghouse, which tracks data from immigration courts.

Even that figure likely understates the backlog because it doesn’t include the impact of the 35-day government shutdown in December and January. Because the system’s roughly 400 immigration judges were furloughed during the shutdown, some 60,000 hearings were canceled. Thousands were rescheduled, adding to the already long wait times.

The administration “has not only failed to reduce the backlog, but has eroded the court’s ability to ensure due process” by pressuring judges to rule “at a breakneck pace” on whether an immigrant should be removed from the United States, the American Immigration Lawyers Assn. — a nonprofit organization of more than 15,000 immigration attorneys and law professors — said in a statement.

When the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review, which administers immigration courts, released its plan, officials described it as a “comprehensive strategy for significantly reducing the caseload by 2020,” according to a partially redacted copy of an October 2017 memo obtained by the immigration lawyers group through a Freedom of Information Act request.

“The size of EOIR’s pending caseload will not reverse itself overnight,” the memo said, but by fully implementing the strategy, the office can “realistically expect not only a reversal of the growth of the caseload, but a significant reduction in it.”

Instead, the average wait has grown by a month from January alone, to 746 days — ironically extending the stay of thousands of migrants whom the administration might want to deport from the United States. The Justice Department declined to immediately comment on the growth of the backlog.

The number of pending immigration cases has risen dramatically in recent years, doubling from less than 300,000 in 2011 to 650,000 by December 2017, the end of Trump’s first year in office, according to the Justice Department.

The Trump administration has blamed the ballooning backlog on President Obama’s immigration policies, saying that “policy changes in recent years have slowed down the adjudication of existing cases and incentivized further illegal immigration that led to new cases.”

Administration officials have pointed to Obama’s effort to focus deportation on immigrants with serious criminal records and protecting certain immigrants known as Dreamers who were brought to the U.S. as children as examples of policies that have provided incentives for illegal border crossings.

The administration’s plan to reverse the backlog included a number of controversial steps.

One move restricted the ability of immigration judges to schedule and set priorities for their cases under a process known as “administrative closure.” That change compelled judges to reopen thousands of cases that had been deemed low priority and had been closed. Within three months of the memo, Immigration and Customs Enforcement had moved to reschedule 8,000 cases, prompting concern from lawmakers, according to the immigration lawyers association. Potentially, as many as 350,000 cases ultimately could be added back onto the court dockets.

The administration’s plan also tied immigration judges’ individual performance reviews to the number of cases they complete, calling for them to finish 700 removal cases in the next year.

In contrast to regular courts, immigration judges are not independent; they’re part of the Justice Department. Because of that, the attorney general is both the chief prosecutor in immigration cases and the ultimate boss of the judges, who are classified as government attorneys.

The National Assn. of Immigration Judges, as well as the immigration lawyers association and other groups, have long called for Congress to end what they see as a built-in conflict of interest and create an immigration court separate from the Justice Department.

“As long as we continue to allow the court to be used as a law enforcement tool,” said Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, “you’re going to get these kinds of backlogs and inefficiencies.”

Any speedup that may have resulted from the imposition of quotas on the judges has been overtaken by the administration’s stepped-up enforcement efforts, which have pushed thousands of new cases into the system.

Stepped-up enforcement without a corresponding increase in judicial resources provides the main reason the backlog has gone up so dramatically, said Stephen Legomsky, Homeland Security’s chief counsel for immigration from 2011 to 2013.

“Immediately upon taking office, President Trump essentially advised Border Patrol agents and ICE officers that they were to begin removal proceedings against anyone they encountered that they suspected of being undocumented, without sufficiently increasing resources for immigration judges,” Legomsky said.

Under previous administrations, “the thinking was, ‘Let’s not spend our limited resources on people who are about to get legal status,’” he said, “Taking that discretion away dramatically increased the caseload.”

Some officials warned that could happen when the effort to curtail the backlog began.

“Any burst of case initiation,” by Homeland Security “could seriously compromise” the Justice Department’s “ability to address its caseload and greatly exacerbate the current state of the backlog,” the acting director of the immigration review office wrote in the October memo to Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein.

The quota effort could also prevent attorneys from providing representation to immigrants, according to the Assn. of Pro Bono Counsel, which represents lawyers who handle cases free of charge for the poor.

Whether immigrants have legal representation makes a huge difference in the outcome of cases: Between October 2000 and November 2018, about 82% of people in immigration court without attorneys were either ordered deported or gave up on their cases and left the country voluntarily, while only 31% of those with lawyers were deported or left.

The administration has succeeded in speeding the hiring of new immigration judges by 74%. The number of immigration judges has grown from 338 when the plan was introduced to 414 by the end of 2018.

Lawmakers have raised concerns that some of those new hires have been politically motivated. In May, House Democrats requested an investigation by the Justice Department Inspector General’s office into allegations that candidates have been chosen or rejected for perceived ideological views.

“The current administration has taken advantage of the court’s structural flaws,” the immigration lawyers association wrote, “introducing numerous policies … that dramatically reshape federal immigration law and undermine due process in immigration court proceedings.”

***********************************************

My Takeaways:

The DOJ politicos made the already bad situation immeasurably worse;
At no time did any of those supposedly “in charge” seriously consider taking measures that could have promoted Due Process and fundamental fairness in a troubled system whose sole function was to insure and protect these Constitutional requirements;
Sessions was warned about the severe adverse consequences of eliminating “administrative closure” by EOIR, but went ahead with his preconceived “White Nationalist” agenda, based on bias, not law;
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who signed off on this monstrosity, is no “hero” just because he stood up to Trump on the Mueller investigation; he’s just another “go along to get along,” like the rest of the Trump DOJ political appointees (with the possible exception of FBI Director Chris Wray);
No sitting judge, indeed no real “stakeholder,” was consulted about these “designed to fail” measures;
The placement of what purports to be a “court system” dedicated to Due Process within the Justice Department is preposterous;
Congress, which created this parody of justice, and the Article III Courts who have failed to “just say no” to all removal orders produced in this “Due Process Free Zone” must share the blame for allowing this Constitutionally untenable situation to continue;
Once again, the victims of the Trump Administration’s “malicious incompetence” are being punished while the “perpetrators” suffer few, if any, consequences.

PWS

02-21-19

******************************

UPDATE: Molly’s article was the “front page lead” in today’s print edition of the LA Times.

https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/latimes/default.aspx?pubid=50435180-e58e-48b5-8e0c-236bf740270e

Gotta give the crew at DOJ/EOIR HQ credit for screwing this up so royally that it’s now off the “back pages” and into the headlines where it belongs. You couldn’t buy publicity like this!

First EOIR Director David “No News Is Good News” Milhollan must be rolling over in his grave right now. And his “General Counsel/Chief Flackie,” my friend and former BIA Appellate Judge Gerald S. “No Comment/We Don’t Track That Statistic” Hurwitz must be watching all of this with amusement and bemusement from his retirement perch. Just goes to support the “Milhollan/Hurwitz Doctrine” that “only bad things can happen once they know you exist.”

PWS

02-22-19

U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS: FEINBLOOM, STEVENS, & SCHMIDT TAKE CASE FOR ARTICLE I IMMIGRATION COURT TO FBA’S 2019 CIVIL RIGHTS ENTOUFFEE IN NEW ORLEANS, LA, FEB. 16, 2019

“Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere. . . . Whatever Affects One Directly, Affects All Indirectly.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Letters From the Birmingham Jail

New Orleans– Appearing before the Federal Bar Association’s 2019 Civil Rights Entouffee, Attorney Jeffrey Feinbloom of the FBA Civil Rights Section, FBA Immigration Section Chair Elizabeth “Betty” Stevens, and I made a powerful pitch to assembled Civil Rights Attorneys for their support for an Article I United States Immigration Court.

Our panel emphasized that the current Immigration Courts under the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), U.S. Department of Justice are a “failed system” threatening everyone’s civil rights. Notwithstanding more Immigration Judges, these “courts” have continued to build backlog at an astonishing and accelerating rate, now topping 1.1 million pending cases following the Government shutdown.

Worse yet, they have essentially become a “hostile environment” for migrants, their attorneys, and sometimes the Immigration Judges and court staff themselves. They also are an impediment to realistic, professional immigration enforcement by DHS. Perhaps worst of all, due process of law has become the apparent enemy of DOJ and EOIR, rather than the objective.

The only way out of this mess is the establishment of an independent Article I Immigration Court, administered in a professional and apolitical manner by sitting judges, not politicized bureaucrats in Washington. Section Chair Betty Stevens and other Section members have helped develop a non-partisan bill to create an Article I Court. We urge everyone to ask their Congressional representatives to make Immigration Court reform an urgent national priority.

Schmidt’s Five Points On Why U.S. immigration Courts Are Unlike Any Other Court System in America

Judges are selected, directed, and “supervised” by the Attorney General, the chief prosecutor;
There is no right to appointed counsel, so young children and others without any understanding of the U.S. legal system, often in detention, are forced to “represent themselves” in life or death cases against experienced ICE Counsel;
The chief prosecutor, the Attorney General, can change any individual case result that he doesn’t like, and rewrite immigration law in the DHS’s favor through “certified precedents;”
There is a 1.1 million case backlog, resulting largely from “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by the DOJ that continues to grow, despite an increase in judges, without any realistic plan for reducing it;
So-called “civil immigration detention” can be used by the Government to limit representation, and for coercion and deterrence of migrants with little or no effective judicial recourse in many cases.

PWS

02-21-19

Tag: Immigration Detention

PARENTS VICTIMIZED BY SESSIONS’S CHILD ABUSE RETURN TO BORDER SEEKING THEIR CHILDREN, JUSTICE, & MERCY FROM A SYSTEM RUN BY THOSE WHO MOCK THE CONCEPTS! — Abusers Escape Accountability While Victims Continue To Suffer!

Data from the Center for Migration Studies
Shows Sharp Multiyear Decline
in Undocumented Immigration

ABA PRESIDENT BOB CARLSON PUTS DUE PROCESS CRISIS IN IMMIGRATION @ TOP OF HIS “MUST DO” LIST — Independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court & More Legal Representation Are The Keys!

Immigration Matters: A fairer process is needed for those seeking entry to the United States

INSIDE THE ADMINISTRATION’S “KIDDIE GULAG:” Thousands Of Allegations Of Sexual Abuse Surface!

PERSPECTIVE: OUR FAILED IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT POLICIES LOOK JUST AS DUMB, SHORT-SIGHTED, & CRUEL FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BORDER!

INSIDE THE “NEW AMERICAN GULAG:” Conditions Are Cruel, Inhuman, Degrading, & Life-Threatening — Why Are We Funding The Perpetrators, Rather Holding Them Accountable & Demanding An End To Human Rights Abuses In America?

PINOCCHIO 4.0: Stephen Miller Spews Forth Lies About Immigrants & Crime From White House Perch!🤥🤥🤥🤥

The Facts

The Pinocchio Test

Four Pinocchios

MARIA SACCHETTI @ WASHPOST: Substantial Majority Of Those Migrants Detained in Trump’s “New American Gulag” Have No Criminal Record!

COURTING DISASTER: NEW AILA REPORT SHREDS DOJ’S “BUILT TO FAIL” IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOG REDUCTION PROGRAM — “Malicious Incompetence” Turns Tragedy To Travesty! — McKinney, Lynch, Creighton, & Schmidt Do Press Conference Exposing Injustice, Waste, Abuse — Listen To Audio Here!

OUR TEAM:

My Takeaways:

U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS: FEINBLOOM, STEVENS, & SCHMIDT TAKE CASE FOR ARTICLE I IMMIGRATION COURT TO FBA’S 2019 CIVIL RIGHTS ENTOUFFEE IN NEW ORLEANS, LA, FEB. 16, 2019

“Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere. . . . Whatever Affects One Directly, Affects All Indirectly.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Letters From the Birmingham Jail

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Data from the Center for Migration Studies Shows Sharp Multiyear Decline in Undocumented Immigration

Related posts:

Immigration Matters: A fairer process is needed for those seeking entry to the United States

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

The Facts

The Pinocchio Test

Four Pinocchios

Related posts:

Related posts:

OUR TEAM:

My Takeaways:

Related posts:

“Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere. . . . Whatever Affects One Directly, Affects All Indirectly.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Letters From the Birmingham Jail

Related posts:

Data from the Center for Migration Studies
Shows Sharp Multiyear Decline
in Undocumented Immigration